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

F-35_launches_Joint_Strike_Missile.jpg

us-south-korea-drill.jpg

this-year-12700-us-troops-are-participating-alongside-many-more-south-korean-soldiers.jpg

the-us-routinely-dedicates-an-extremely-large-contingent-of-soldiers-and-marines-to-the-drills.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; Not really too sure on your argument sorry, other than to say that The Labour Government did have a major ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 8 votes, 4.25 average.
Old August 30th, 2007   #601
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Markus40's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 615
Threads:
Not really too sure on your argument sorry, other than to say that The Labour Government did have a major interest in a military satelite for our own forces to use than to be using other sources. I felt that this in many ways would have gone along way for a more independant role for our defence forces to use in any theatre of action, and give NZDFs a far bigger scope for being able to inter operate between our 3 armed services, not to mention future possibilities like UAVs and similar technology and Intelligence gathering on a deployed field of action.

Have never spoken about National in my previous thread at all, so im confused over your overall objective questioning in this regard. Cheers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
Why should we be forced to take care of our so called allies? Shouldn't they take care of themselves? Are they bludging off our military? We have never had our own military satelite. We have never needed one. To keep with this thread, what evidence do you have that National would purchase/ fund one?
________________
Defence Specialist
Markus40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2007   #602
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 346
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
Why should we be forced to take care of our so called allies? Shouldn't they take care of themselves?
Would you care to provide evidence of who is forcing NZ to do anything?

Quote:
Are they bludging off our military?
NZ is the nation that cannot self deploy or sustain its own forces to suggest others bludge of us is absurd.

Quote:
We have never had our own military satelite.
So? does that somehow preclude us from needing one?



Quote:
We have never needed one.
Says who? Just because we have never aquired that capability does not negate the need for it, if that need exists.

Quote:
To keep with this thread, what evidence do you have that National would purchase/ fund one?
There is no evidence that National would do anything, they seem to have been lacking any policy detail on defence for some time, probably why they want to have someone write a white paper for them, to provide ideas for them, as they lack their own. However McCully has already stated that if something was recommended by a defence white paper, then it could well become policy.
Stuart Mackey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2007   #603
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Markus40's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 615
Threads:
I dont think its a question of charity. God forbid. My point is and i will try and emphasis it a different way for you to understand, and hope we can progress from there. Firstly, the issue is that NZ operates and deploys with a UN mandate along with other countries in Peacekeeping which our current defence forces are more focused into. As AD has pointed out correctly its in this deployed environment that NZ lacks the full military ability to be able to sustain and keep our forces in a state of independance from other deployed armed forces with us, where we are able to support our men and women armed and trained with proper logistics and supply. In the past NZ has seemed to be very dependant on other forces to pull us through any contingency, when in my opinion we should be able to sustain our fighting men and woman without having to "scrape the barrel" of other deployed countries forces to get what we need.

NZ is very isolated in terms of logistics and extending our support to any of our Defence Forces in the world, and to be honest we need to recognise that we need better air lift capability and stronger maritime assets to be able to overlook our contingency plans in a way thats going to benefit our allies in any deployment. I think we have come some distance in our maritime capability but it isnt there yet, im afraid.

You refer to charity, and i would assume you mean Peace Keeping ability and i want to reiterate that what i am talking about has nothing to do with charity , but everything to do with NZs role as a military partner that contributes well with our allies like Australia when both countries are deployed along together. Quite simply we cannot continue to be relying on the resources of other countries that we deploy with to get us through. We need to be self reliant and self supporting in a country that we can bare the burden of responsibility and not be a burden to our allies by means of supply and logistics and even air cover. We need to be doing this for ourselves. Cheers.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
Duck and cover has some relevance. It was when various countries suggested that their populations could defend agaainst a nuclear war by getting under their desks (US duck tape, anyone?) years ago, before everyone realised that a nuclear attack could not be defended against by the population hiding! I did it once in the early 1980's. (South Park did a parody in relation to a volcanic eruption)

Marcus: you mentioned that we would not be able to defend the country we were trying to defend. Again, we are giving charity. Anything we add is over and above that which they can should provide themselves. They would have no legitimate right to complain because we don't owe them anything. By definition we are providing them with extra capability. For anyone to insult us by saying we should have provided even more than the charity we are giving makes me, and any real New Zealander, very angry. We owe no-one beyond our shores anything. Anything we do is a gift we deem to supply. Try not to give comfort to the enemy (and those who would insult us) and criticise your country.

You implicitedly criticised NZ when you mentioned the US providing transport for our SAS to fight in Afghanistan as "What is going on?". What is going on is we provided charity. I really think if the US felt it wasn't worth our spending NZ tax dollars to pay for theirr c17 to fly our troups to Afghanistan, they would have said NO. Are you saying that if we do not have a C17 that we should not have gifted our troops to go there? That somehow our choosing the most economical method of deployment is something the NZ military should be criticised for.
________________
Defence Specialist
Markus40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2007   #604
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,033
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
Todjaeger: You have said that if NZ was threatened there would be some US involvement (implication being to support us). From the rhetoric of the time I know the US did not envisaged that - let's not make it up. They wouldn't even train with the NZ military (they still require some sort of presidential decree to allow NZ to be part of any training with US forces as part of the mix) or formally meet the NZ Prime Minister (to keep in thread that included the National Prime Minister) for several years. The fact there was no need for the US to support us shows that NZ has lived in a benign strategic environment over the last 20 years. Don't claim you would have helped without any evidence that says you would have! Easy to say, impossible to prove.
You are quite correct that I would expect there to be some level of US involvement, and that would either be in support of New Zealand directly, or indirectly by supporting other nations who are in turn supporting or aiding New Zealand.

In point of fact, I would expect the US to become involved if any nation threatened to overrun or conquer another nation. Particularly if the nation under attack did nothing to provoke hostilities. I believe such a situation would have UN involvement, likely with US support as well as other nations, because it is the "right thing to do". I have no specific proof to offer of this belief, apart from the world reaction to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 17 years ago. A coalition of forces from some 34 countries, spread across six continents, became involved against Iraq. As far as I am aware, most nations did not have a defence treaty with Kuwait, if any. It is likely that petroleum and economic concerns has some part of play in the interest in freeing Kuwait, but still, it was the effort of a sizable number of nations.

Now for reasons specific to why the US might become involved if New Zealand were threatened. I deem it likely that if NZ were threatened, Australia and possibly the UK could become involved due to friendship and common heritage. Also Japan and South Korea might get drawn in, since they are important trading partners. The US is allied with all these countries, as well as an important trading partner. For these reasons, that it would be the "right thing to do," as well as likely active involvement of US allies, I cannot see the US telling the NZ government or people, "No, we won't help you."

Of course the situation would be a bit different if the US was actively engaged somewhere already in a hot conflict (no, not like Iraq at present) and the US might not have sufficient or appropriate forces to contribute. And yes, this is what I think likely, even with treaty obligations suspended.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2007   #605
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,846
Threads:
What would the ADF or NZDF replace it with anyway. the ADF was looking at the AICW wich was an F88 with a automatic 40mm grenatde laucher installed above the rifle barell.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as72-e.htm

As far as other choices, unless your looking at something like the Tavor or SAR 21, anything else is a step backward or sideways from the F88. M16A2 or FAMAS would not be worth the investment, SA80 would be a big mistake... I doubt there will be a replacement untill something markable different from what we ahve at the moment.
Ozzy Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2007   #606
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Investigator View Post

You mentioned you would like NZ to "possess the capability to support it's own forces in such a situation (peacekeeping mission turning ugly) and not rely on others to bail it out". I note that in the support Australia is giving Afganistan (which I praise your country for doing - well done) you have not supplied any attack helicopters or fighter planes or artillery pieces. If the mission turned ugly you would rightfully expect your coallition partners to bail you out. I'm not criticising Australia, i'm stating that if Australia doesn't do what you expect NZ to do, then why should we do it? (see operation slipper on the Aust defence website) Having these assets at home do not help your forces in any immediate (or several hours later) firefight.
I agree, however Australia has entered an agreement with the Dutch in relation to a particular province within Afghanistan. Australia provides engineers and a combined infantry/cavalry force protection package. The Dutch provide infantry and supporting capabilities, such as Apaches and artillery capability to the ISAF force in ALL of Afghanistan. Much like Australia did with it's Chinooks. Assets are deployed as required from said pool.

The various capabilities deployed are designed to "value add" and mutually support each other. You'll notice no doubt that the Dutch do not have a special operations element deployed with "the Ghan" any longer, such having been replaced by the Australian contingent...

Australia in fact has 7 (9 within 2 months) "attack" helicopters and these will reach IOC in 2009 and FOC in 2010.

All other capabilities that support our deployment in Afghanistan could be provided by Australia from it's own resources. NZ does not possess this capability at all, which was my point. The decision to deploy or otherwise is one Australia can take. NZ cannot, through simply not possessing the capabilities.

For instance we operate 155mm howitzers which are equipped with the Copperhead precision guided artillery munition and I've heard that up to 18x of these same guns are currently being modified under an urgent requirement to fire the Excalibur PGM.

We currently operate Skylark and Scan Eagle UAV's, with the Scan Eagles to be replaced (maybe) by the I-VIEW TUAV, which is on order.

We operate fighter jets with the requisite capability to conduct operations within Afghanistan.

The decision not to deploy these capabilities is merely a political one. Not one imposed by lack of said capability...

Quote:
I thought you had previously posted that NZ does not face any likelyhood of invasion. Therefore an air combat force is not a priority for NZ. Any contributions in that area would be charity. No one should be forced to pay charity. Did I dream that?
I agree that NZ doesn't face an imminent threat of invasion. Could you please point to where I have suggested an air combat force IS a priority for NZ?

I have suggested the re-activation of the MB-339C fleet should be a priority.

I have suggested the arming of the P-3K fleet with a standoff air to surface weapon should be a priority.

I have suggested an aerial reconnaisance and fire support capacity to support land operations should be a priority.


Quote:
You refer to East Timor. If it had exploded in flames and Indonesia had re-invaded it would not have made one iota of difference to our country (subject to any deaths of NZ military personnel). We are helping a country several thousand kms from our shores because we are nice people, not because it increases or reduces our security (it may reduce Australia's security if you are afraid of your neighbour - starts with I and ends with ndonesia (I stole that)). I support the mission and the funds expended on it but it is charity for us. It is not our neighbour.
So you have no concern for the Timorese people? Your Australian and other UN Allies that undertook the mission?

What about your own forces? Does NZ possess the capability to extract them if a situation turns into a serious fight and your politicans have left the NZDF a "toothless tiger"?

Not with 5x C-130's that are often offline, B-757's that can't operate in a warzone and HMAS Canterbury which can't either...
  Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2007   #607
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy Blizzard View Post
What would the ADF or NZDF replace it with anyway. the ADF was looking at the AICW wich was an F88 with a automatic 40mm grenatde laucher installed above the rifle barell.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as72-e.htm

As far as other choices, unless your looking at something like the Tavor or SAR 21, anything else is a step backward or sideways from the F88. M16A2 or FAMAS would not be worth the investment, SA80 would be a big mistake... I doubt there will be a replacement untill something markable different from what we ahve at the moment.
H&K 416 for mine. Something SOCOMD may already be using...

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as75-e.htm

and the H&K 417 for the "marksmans" rifle for Land 40 Phase 2...
  Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2007   #608
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Markus40's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 615
Threads:
I think to be honest that the reactivation of the MB339C will go only a short distance to meet NZs total air defence needs, such as training the other 2 services and to provide a limited maritime capability. The aircraft itself would have no significance towards contributing to any deployment effort if one became available alongside Australia, as it has only a limited range at that.

However in saying that it could serve in a limited role for NZs own self defence requirements if needed, within our Economic Zone only, would make sense. However, i am also of the opinion that any activation of these aircraft would need to have a clear directive from the government for a future of air combat in our country.
________________
Defence Specialist
Markus40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2007   #609
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,940
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
H&K 416 for mine. Something SOCOMD may already be using...

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as75-e.htm

and the H&K 417 for the "marksmans" rifle for Land 40 Phase 2...
I like the traditional look of the H&K 416. I much prefer the magazine in front of the pistol grip and trigger. If H&K have fixed problems found in the M16 and M4 which these weapons are based on then they look to be a good option.

Tas
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2007   #610
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
I like the traditional look of the H&K 416. I much prefer the magazine in front of the pistol grip and trigger. If H&K have fixed problems found in the M16 and M4 which these weapons are based on then they look to be a good option.

Tas
The weapon is certainly raved about by it's users in the US SOCOMD I have read and it would neatly solve the commonality issue within Australian forces, special and otherwise...

Plus I too personally prefer the "conventional" layout in a rifle...
  Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2007   #611
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus40 View Post
I think to be honest that the reactivation of the MB339C will go only a short distance to meet NZs total air defence needs, such as training the other 2 services and to provide a limited maritime capability. The aircraft itself would have no significance towards contributing to any deployment effort if one became available alongside Australia, as it has only a limited range at that.

However in saying that it could serve in a limited role for NZs own self defence requirements if needed, within our Economic Zone only, would make sense. However, i am also of the opinion that any activation of these aircraft would need to have a clear directive from the government for a future of air combat in our country.
We agree once more...

I also agree that at best the MB-339C would provide only a limited capability in the short to medium term. Perhaps an upgrade of sorts might increase it's utility, or alternatively a number of years of operation might convince the pollies to replace it with something slightly more capable, but I can't see the re-building of the ACF in the forseeable future unless there is a significant downturn in the strategic situation in the Asia-Pacific region in coming years.

The MB-339C could provide some "fast" maritime interdiction capability in NZ's EEZ and some ability to exercise control over NZ airspace (against civilian air threats - a terrorist incident or some such perhaps), plus with it's training role for the RNZAF pilots and other NZ services I think it could prove be very useful...
  Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2007   #612
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Markus40's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 615
Threads:
I think also there is a serious potential of a downturn in the political and strategic situation in the Asia region, with Taiwan, Indonesia, China, and perhaps some unstable politics in South Wst Asia as well. So the atmosphere of change is very real, but i am just wondering if the situation deteriorates rapidly whether NZ will have the time to Institute a bringing back of our air combat wings in time with meeting a satisfactory level of air combat ability to offset this change. At least if we had some pilots trained in the MB339C we might be able to upgrade them to a top tier aircraft that would offer NZ a 100% air combat ability. But this would take time and money and unfortunatly with a pacifist government like NZ who has no brain when it comes to military affairs is only going to be able to offer a 50% ability if the MB339C is already back and flying. Thats a big "IF".

But in saying this if we cant train our pilots in long range sorties, or the ability to integrate with a partner, then its back to NZ relying on Australia to use its F35a for any future situations if required. This i find distasteful to the extreme, and NZ still cant learn the lessons when it comes to poaching off other allies to get through. We might be a small country and isolated, but this in itself still demands "holes" in our military ability to be filled. Our maritime environment is extremely vulnerable as well as the free trade routes which we trade with our partners, and its this that i think needs addressing.

I made mention in a previous post that the "Project Protector" programme in its pure form is only an extension of the Navy doing a job for Customs and naughty trawler interception. Its even on the very limits of not having an ability currently to do this without proper survellience radar and having "adequate" weapons to counter a potential problem. The OPVs might have the Seasprite with its search radar, buts its ability to stay aloft for any decent period of time is really not a viable option.

They say that the OPVs and MRV will offer the Navy the ability to be able to operate alongside the normal operations of the Navy but i have serious doubts on this because simply they cannot protect themselves. The MRV will be able to carry the Armys equipment grant that, but it is a sitting duck in a war zone. So i can only come to the conclusion that its operations will be in more ways than not a more humanitarian or peacekeeping asset to the Navy. A Bushmaster is a pea shooter on the high seas when faced with missile armed patrol boats. Just my thoughts on this anyways.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
We agree once more...

I also agree that at best the MB-339C would provide only a limited capability in the short to medium term. Perhaps an upgrade of sorts might increase it's utility, or alternatively a number of years of operation might convince the pollies to replace it with something slightly more capable, but I can't see the re-building of the ACF in the forseeable future unless there is a significant downturn in the strategic situation in the Asia-Pacific region in coming years.

The MB-339C could provide some "fast" maritime interdiction capability in NZ's EEZ and some ability to exercise control over NZ airspace (against civilian air threats - a terrorist incident or some such perhaps), plus with it's training role for the RNZAF pilots and other NZ services I think it could prove be very useful...
________________
Defence Specialist
Markus40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2007   #613
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,940
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus40 View Post
I think also there is a serious potential of a downturn in the political and strategic situation in the Asia region, with Taiwan, Indonesia, China, and perhaps some unstable politics in South Wst Asia as well. So the atmosphere of change is very real, but i am just wondering if the situation deteriorates rapidly whether NZ will have the time to Institute a bringing back of our air combat wings in time with meeting a satisfactory level of air combat ability to offset this change. At least if we had some pilots trained in the MB339C we might be able to upgrade them to a top tier aircraft that would offer NZ a 100% air combat ability. But this would take time and money and unfortunatly with a pacifist government like NZ who has no brain when it comes to military affairs is only going to be able to offer a 50% ability if the MB339C is already back and flying. Thats a big "IF".
Marcus, I agree with your comment about the potential for a downturn in the strategic situation in Asia. I also believe that there is merit in training pilots who could 'graduate' reasonably quickly to a top tier combat aircraft if there is a sudden deterioration. Hopefully, if that happens, any NZ government will 'bite the bullet' and find the money necessary. There always seems to be some bargains around - look at the Dutch F-16's that are up for sale at present for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus40 View Post
But in saying this if we cant train our pilots in long range sorties, or the ability to integrate with a partner, then its back to NZ relying on Australia to use its F35a for any future situations if required. This i find distasteful to the extreme, and NZ still cant learn the lessons when it comes to poaching off other allies to get through. We might be a small country and isolated, but this in itself still demands "holes" in our military ability to be filled. Our maritime environment is extremely vulnerable as well as the free trade routes which we trade with our partners, and its this that i think needs addressing.
I understand and sympathise with your thoughts about these issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus40 View Post

I made mention in a previous post that the "Project Protector" programme in its pure form is only an extension of the Navy doing a job for Customs and naughty trawler interception. Its even on the very limits of not having an ability currently to do this without proper survellience radar and having "adequate" weapons to counter a potential problem. The OPVs might have the Seasprite with its search radar, buts its ability to stay aloft for any decent period of time is really not a viable option.

They say that the OPVs and MRV will offer the Navy the ability to be able to operate alongside the normal operations of the Navy but i have serious doubts on this because simply they cannot protect themselves. The MRV will be able to carry the Armys equipment grant that, but it is a sitting duck in a war zone. So i can only come to the conclusion that its operations will be in more ways than not a more humanitarian or peacekeeping asset to the Navy. A Bushmaster is a pea shooter on the high seas when faced with missile armed patrol boats. Just my thoughts on this anyways.
I feel much the same about Australia's patrol boat force. The Armidales are insufficiently armed to take on potential enemy patrol boats. They are fine for the peacetime border and fisheries protection role and for supporting Customs, but their light construction limits their capacity for a wartime weapons upgrade, unlike the old Fremantles which were capable, IIRC, of mounting a 76mm Oto Melero in place of the 40mm Bofors.

I do think that the more solidly constructed NZ OPVs look capable of carrying a more powerful armament if required. Canterbury would certainly need a self defence boost if deployed in a troop carrying role to a 'hot' area.

Tas
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2007   #614
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
barra's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 333
Threads:
One thing in NZ's advantage is having a large friendly nation as your neighbour and I think that this lulls the kiwis into a false sense of security. There is no real effort to build capable, well armed forces cause they know that Australia will bail them out.

Take the ACF for example. Fighter jets are seen as an expensive waste of money on a capability that will "never" be used in anger. OK, if they never deploy anywhere that may be so but what about all the other functions of a ACF? Who trains your SAS and infantry to call in airstrikes, who trains your Navy in air defence and missile threats and what have the young men and women of NZ got to aspire to? Flying Hercs and P-3s around in circles?

Getting the Macchis back in the air should be a top priority for the RNZAF. Even if NZ doesn't go that one step further and buy fully fledged fighters at least they are providing the opportunity for young kiwis to serve their country flying fast jets and provide training support to the Army and Navy. Senior pilots could look for exchange postings with the RAAF, RAF or US services to expand their skills. I think that would be a better situation than letting them sit idle in some hangar. Thats my view anyway.

Hooroo
barra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2007   #615
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,940
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by barra View Post
Getting the Macchis back in the air should be a top priority for the RNZAF. Even if NZ doesn't go that one step further and buy fully fledged fighters at least they are providing the opportunity for young kiwis to serve their country flying fast jets and provide training support to the Army and Navy. Senior pilots could look for exchange postings with the RAAF, RAF or US services to expand their skills. I think that would be a better situation than letting them sit idle in some hangar. Thats my view anyway.
Good points Barra. You are right that the MB339s have much to offer the NZDF in their own right as well as providing a base for any future ACF.

Tas
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:13 AM.