Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


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; Originally Posted by Rob c Totally agree with the sentiment. The pollies in Ireland (and possibly Canada ) know that ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 4.00 average.
Old August 12th, 2017   #4111
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 338
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob c View Post
Totally agree with the sentiment. The pollies in Ireland (and possibly Canada ) know that they sit right next door to a major power and there is no way in hell that the major power would allow an unfriendly take over. This is not the situation NZ finds its self.
Given the current tensions between North Korea and the USA, and in the South China Sea, doesn't that factor at least a small part in defence policy,? as it certainly hadn't been improving, certainly not under the Trump administration.

Was surprised to see Gerry Brownlees comment to the media about Nz not willing to give military assistance to USA unlike Austrailias commitment to any such conflict, siting ANZUS. Surely Nz too to bound by that agreement too? We will know in only a few days too if North Korea is bluffing or not, if they strike Guam as they detailed, morally could Nz justify remaining neutral?
kiwipatriot69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2017   #4112
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,654
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwipatriot69 View Post
Given the current tensions between North Korea and the USA, and in the South China Sea, doesn't that factor at least a small part in defence policy,? as it certainly hadn't been improving, certainly not under the Trump administration.

Was surprised to see Gerry Brownlees comment to the media about Nz not willing to give military assistance to USA unlike Austrailias commitment to any such conflict, siting ANZUS. Surely Nz too to bound by that agreement too? We will know in only a few days too if North Korea is bluffing or not, if they strike Guam as they detailed, morally could Nz justify remaining neutral?
I'm not sure of the exact standing of ANZUS with the thawing of relation between those two countries, but I would expect NZ would intervene if KJU start lobbing nuc's at the US even if it's a superficial gesture of just stand with solidarity as Australia would if worst case was to happen. Not much either counter can do if it comes to that.
t68 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2017   #4113
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 1,849
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwipatriot69 View Post
Given the current tensions between North Korea and the USA, and in the South China Sea, doesn't that factor at least a small part in defence policy,? as it certainly hadn't been improving, certainly not under the Trump administration.

Was surprised to see Gerry Brownlees comment to the media about Nz not willing to give military assistance to USA unlike Austrailias commitment to any such conflict, siting ANZUS. Surely Nz too to bound by that agreement too? We will know in only a few days too if North Korea is bluffing or not, if they strike Guam as they detailed, morally could Nz justify remaining neutral?
Not surprised. There is an election on and the public stance is neutral - the non public stance (the real one) is different and the alphabet soup agencies will be beavering away.

Furthermore we have an Orion in Guam and an Anzac was at recent standing in for the Fitzgerald in the 7th Fleet. That is what we would be sending anyway.

Last edited by MrConservative; August 13th, 2017 at 06:26 AM.
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2017   #4114
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: not in New England anymore...
Posts: 3,754
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrConservative View Post
HADR is virtuous in itself and in terms of 'marketing' to the public. The NZDF has quietly evolved away from the 'New Ireland' posture over the last decade. The elephant in the room is not yet reversing the culling of air combat and reduction of surface combatants in 2000. That perception will always dog us even if significant improvements are made in other areas.
I see no issue with a nation's armed forces engaging in HADR operations. Indeed the ability to operate in areas without needing to rely upon local infrastructure is often required for HADR operations, as events are likely to have taken that infrastructure offline. What I see as an issue, is when procurement decisions are made in reference to HADR and/or peacekeeping operations in place of core military capabilities. For example, looking at the NZDF logistics and transport support, how many of the aircraft and vessels either currently lack, or until recently have lacked capable, modern self-defence suites? Another example would be some of the M113 replacement programme criteria, which IIRC specified a wheeled replacement, as they were/are more efficient on road travel. There was an inference that future deployments of NZ troops would be similar to the last deployment of the M113's where their performance was so problematic, namely peacekeeping operations in developed areas. I am absolutely a proponent of "dual-use" capabilities which can be used for HADR, as well as to support troops during deployments. What I would like to see is a further change in upcoming procurement and force structure which moves the NZDF away from only being able to sustain low intensity deployments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob c View Post
Totally agree with the sentiment. The pollies in Ireland (and possibly Canada ) know that they sit right next door to a major power and there is no way in hell that the major power would allow an unfriendly take over. This is not the situation NZ finds its self.
The issue I have with the above is that it again seems to be ignoring the impact NZ can/will feel following an incident or outbreak of hostilities far from NZ's local vicinity. Just imagine the economic havoc that NZ and much of the world would face if, during the transit of a "fishing" vessel through the Malacca Straits, said vessel deployed even a single sea mine. Or as a result of rising tensions in the SCS submarines belonging to opposing nations covertly laid mines in the channels to ports that belong to their opponent's, or along the SLOC. NZ might not be directly involved in the conflict, but the negative impact on trade routs will have a negative impact on normal, daily life in NZ. If NZ was a largely self-sufficient nation, able to meet basically all required domestic production, then a defence posture focusing on NZ and the regional approaches would make sense. Unfortunately, NZ is an exporter of some goods while having to import of others. This in effect means that the protective 'moat' around NZ which helps keep others out, can also serve to contain Kiwis.

Given how far the NZDF has been allowed to be run down in terms of quantities as well as modern capabilities, it will likely take a good deal of long-term planning, as well as years (if not an entire generation) of sticking to a long-term regeneration plan. Some of what is needed is already under way, but IMO a joint effort by the services is needed so that regardless of the gov't of the day, the capabilities needed to ensure NZ sovereignty and NZ interests can met.
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017   #4115
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Marton NZ
Posts: 537
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
I see no issue with a nation's armed forces engaging in HADR operations. Indeed the ability to operate in areas without needing to rely upon local infrastructure is often required for HADR operations, as events are likely to have taken that infrastructure offline. What I see as an issue, is when procurement decisions are made in reference to HADR and/or peacekeeping operations in place of core military capabilities. For example, looking at the NZDF logistics and transport support, how many of the aircraft and vessels either currently lack, or until recently have lacked capable, modern self-defence suites? Another example would be some of the M113 replacement programme criteria, which IIRC specified a wheeled replacement, as they were/are more efficient on road travel. There was an inference that future deployments of NZ troops would be similar to the last deployment of the M113's where their performance was so problematic, namely peacekeeping operations in developed areas. I am absolutely a proponent of "dual-use" capabilities which can be used for HADR, as well as to support troops during deployments. What I would like to see is a further change in upcoming procurement and force structure which moves the NZDF away from only being able to sustain low intensity deployments.



The issue I have with the above is that it again seems to be ignoring the impact NZ can/will feel following an incident or outbreak of hostilities far from NZ's local vicinity. Just imagine the economic havoc that NZ and much of the world would face if, during the transit of a "fishing" vessel through the Malacca Straits, said vessel deployed even a single sea mine. Or as a result of rising tensions in the SCS submarines belonging to opposing nations covertly laid mines in the channels to ports that belong to their opponent's, or along the SLOC. NZ might not be directly involved in the conflict, but the negative impact on trade routs will have a negative impact on normal, daily life in NZ. If NZ was a largely self-sufficient nation, able to meet basically all required domestic production, then a defence posture focusing on NZ and the regional approaches would make sense. Unfortunately, NZ is an exporter of some goods while having to import of others. This in effect means that the protective 'moat' around NZ which helps keep others out, can also serve to contain Kiwis.

Given how far the NZDF has been allowed to be run down in terms of quantities as well as modern capabilities, it will likely take a good deal of long-term planning, as well as years (if not an entire generation) of sticking to a long-term regeneration plan. Some of what is needed is already under way, but IMO a joint effort by the services is needed so that regardless of the gov't of the day, the capabilities needed to ensure NZ sovereignty and NZ interests can met.
Agree that far off incidents can have a very significant impact on NZ. However I still think that our primary responsibility is first to secure our primary security and then move outward. If we fail to maintain our sovereignty first and foremost then the ability to move into the wider defence environment is a wasted ability. Your primary security must always be your first priority. You are right that it will take a long time to rectify the current shortcoming, I would say at the very least, one to two decades.
Rob c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017   #4116
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,115
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Massive View Post
I hear you on this Rob.

Always the issue that defence expenditure is known but impact is not.

That said - what critical capability is there that NZ would need to develop NOW to provide a basis for expansion to deal with currently unknown future threats?

NZ has a modern defence force - so what would need to be added is reasonably limited:

+ Mine laying and counter measures
+ BAMS UAV
+ Tracked armour
+ Massed fires
+ AAW (Mistral in storage, beyond Mistral?)

Of these, I would have thought only the mine warfare and BAMS are critical to introduce now.

Once you start thinking about supporting international operations it gets broader but I am generally not convinced that NZ defence posture is that misguided.

Regards,

Massive
+ Mine laying and counter measures
The Moa Class IPC used to have the sidescan sonar for mine detection. They mapped the seafloor of the major harbours / ports creating a baseline from which they could compare subsequent sonar surveys to compare and contrast looking for any differences. This capability was introduced in the early 1990s when I was in.

+ BAMS UAV
Ideally the MQ-4C Triton, but the NZG has not yet publicly released any RPAS (UAV) policy. At present point in time I think that the triton might be a tad expensive.

+ Tracked armour
Personally I do not believe that NZ will go down this route. The heaviest tank that the NZ Army operated was the Centurion many decades ago. IMHO 8x8 wheeled armour will be as good as it gets. TBH there aren't many places that a track vehicle can go to that 8x8 wheeled armour cannot access.

+ Massed fires
16 Field Regiment are the artillery unit, operating L119 105mm howitzers. We won't see HIMARS or similar wearing Kiwi tags. I would like to see some of our current NZLAV modified as SPGs with a 105mm turret replacing the current turret. That would give us mobile fire support.

+ AAW (Mistral in storage, beyond Mistral?)
Yep AAW is very parsimonious. If they fitted all the NZLAV with something like the SAAB UTAAS Tank and Anti-Aircraft System - Universal Sight and Fire-Control System, then they would be able to utilise the 25mm gun for AAA. Mounting something like Mistral or Stinger on the turret sides would add to that capability. Finally from my POV, they should invest in a GBAMD system based around the CAMM(L) - Land Ceptor missile. It is a modular system with a 12 missile launcher on the deck of a MAN truck being easily reloaded and / or mounted / dismounted quickly. It has the advantage of being highly mobile and easily concealable.
________________
The Rules - read them. Ignorance of them is not an excuse.
The Introduction thread for new members to tell the rest of us something about you.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2017   #4117
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: not in New England anymore...
Posts: 3,754
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob c View Post
Agree that far off incidents can have a very significant impact on NZ. However I still think that our primary responsibility is first to secure our primary security and then move outward. If we fail to maintain our sovereignty first and foremost then the ability to move into the wider defence environment is a wasted ability. Your primary security must always be your first priority. You are right that it will take a long time to rectify the current shortcoming, I would say at the very least, one to two decades.
IMO the direct threats to NZ's sovereignty are fairly limited, due to the local environment. There are of course areas of weakness which could and should see improvement, specifically in the areas of detection and response.

From my POV though, the capability improvements in those areas would both be able to make NZ's local sovereignty more secure, but also lend themselves to NZ being able to take active role in events away from NZ.

That ability to take an active role IMO is very important because while NZ has a great potential for defence in depth as a result of the tyranny of distance, an inability to have forces operating any distance away from NZ basically yields all that depth to any/all potential attackers.

Another area IMO which needs to be boosted, is just in the quantity of kit and qualified personnel to operate and maintain it. As an example, with the RNZN only having two frigates, availability can be very problematic, especially once a major upgrade programme is underway. A force of three, or preferably four frigates, would ease availability for planned and surge deployments, as well as meeting training, maintenance and upgrade cycles.

The same can be said basically across the entire NZDF. If NZ only maintains enough forces to sustain a small amount of low intensity operations, any increase in either the number or intensity of operations could possibly be met but only for a short period of time. If both the scale and intensity of operations increased at the same time, then NZ might, perhaps, be able to meet such requirements for a very brief period of time before needing to scale back operations to regenerate NZ forces. OTOH it is also possible that NZ forces might not be able to meet the demands.
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2017   #4118
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,115
Threads:
2015 / 16 Major Projects Report

The Defence 2015 / 16 Major Projects Report was released today. It is three pdf files of 80 - 90 pages each.
________________
The Rules - read them. Ignorance of them is not an excuse.
The Introduction thread for new members to tell the rest of us something about you.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #4119
Defense Enthusiast
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 881
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
The Defence 2015 / 16 Major Projects Report was released today. It is three pdf files of 80 - 90 pages each.
Thanks Ngati.

Some very interesting reading there for those with an interest in the minutiae of defence procurement. Highly recommended.
40 deg south is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #4120
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
MrConservative's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind a Desk
Posts: 1,849
Threads:
Just to inform a bit of public information about your possible next government.

Check out their defence allocations on their fiscal forecast.

Fiscal Forecasts - New Zealand Labour Party

Looks like at a first glance Labour has funded only operational spending and tiny increases going forward. At the bottom their is a asterix line about unallocated capital spending of $5.5B through to 2022 - but that is to cover everything and is vapourware if as I expect the economic performance tanks under this fiscal plan.

Also no shopfront policy on foreign affairs, security and defence.

Our Vision - New Zealand Labour Party
MrConservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #4121
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,926
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrConservative View Post
Just to inform a bit of public information about your possible next government.

Check out their defence allocations on their fiscal forecast.

Fiscal Forecasts - New Zealand Labour Party

Looks like at a first glance Labour has funded only operational spending and tiny increases going forward. At the bottom their is a asterix line about unallocated capital spending of $5.5B through to 2022 - but that is to cover everything and is vapourware if as I expect the economic performance tanks under this fiscal plan.

Also no shopfront policy on foreign affairs, security and defence.

Our Vision - New Zealand Labour Party
It indicates their priorities, defence has the same allocation as for heritage, culture and recreation.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #4122
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
It indicates their priorities, defence has the same allocation as for heritage, culture and recreation.
Sounds like some political parties here in Canada.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Days Ago   #4123
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 184
Threads:
NZDF support for the "Auckland Airport Fuel Crisis" (a pipeline to Auckland and Auckland Airport from the country's only refinery was damaged and will not be functional for another 10 days)

HMNZS Endevour gets to move fuel around the country - a nice way to tour the country in her final year; Wonder if this makes anyone think that maybe not having a tanker available for so long is not the greatest idea.

Quote:
"The nature of the damage means repair isn't quick and the work has to be done very carefully. But if any additional personnel or expertise from the Defence Force can speed the work up in any way then they'll be made available.

"To free up industry resources to focus upon Auckland Airport, the Defence Force will be using the naval tanker HMNZS Endeavour to move diesel fuel from Marsden Point to other parts of the country.

"The Defence Force will also be providing up to 20 additional tanker drivers to assist local operators in managing their increased workload, cancelling a major exercise with Singapore to preserve fuel, deferring non-essential training and it's also investigating options around refueling smaller commuter aircraft at Whenuapai Airforce Base."

https://stuff.liveblog.pro/stuff/blo...3Enewest_first
Is this the F-16s currently here? IF so, just a little a bit embarrassing while trying to get a longer term arrangement.

Last edited by htbrst; 2 Days Ago at 01:17 AM. Reason: Added Link as requested
htbrst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Days Ago   #4124
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,115
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by htbrst View Post
NZDF support for the "Auckland Airport Fuel Crisis" (a pipeline to Auckland and Auckland Airport from the country's only refinery was damaged and will not be functional for another 10 days)
............
Can you please edit the above post to include the source of the quote. This protects both you and the forum from allegations of plagiarism.
________________
The Rules - read them. Ignorance of them is not an excuse.
The Introduction thread for new members to tell the rest of us something about you.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Days Ago   #4125
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2017
Location: wlg
Posts: 13
Threads:
Has ACT party removed there defense policy from their website ?could not find it when I looked today. A few years ago they had one similar to nz first.

Either I'm blind and can't search, or they are in middle of changing it or don't think it's important ..
danonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:25 AM.