New Zealand invasion

[Aussie Digger]

How nice of you Mr Digger. Tell me, exactly which part of my scenario is ridiculously fanciful? As far as I can see, the risk of all these actions taking place is well founded in existing threat "hot spots" around the world, or recent historical events. The fanciful part is the notion that all may be happening at once or in the sequence proposed. My point is, it is a good idea to think defence through using long term perspective and not just take account of established truths. I was just trying to envisage a situation that would present NZ with a threat where the usual alliance would not be of help, as my impression is that this was not easy to contemplate for some. If this offends you, I am truly sorry, beeing the rank amateur that I obviously am. If my prescence on this forum annoys you, please give the word and I will be gone.

I cant find the particulars on the Frogfoot. I might be mistanken, but I do remember the USSR had a VSTOL craft, something akin to the Harrier, although not as capable and not a true VTOL machine. In my mind I remember this as a Frogfoot, I seem to remember it beeing a Yak. Anyone got the correct designation. They where origianally meant to deploy on the USSR carriers until proper carrier aircraft where developed.

Anyway, these are the machines I'm talking about. It is no problem what so ever to operate VTOL from a large container ship. It was done by the brits during the Falklands.

You can camouflage this by installing a lift underneath what would look like a set of containers, but in reality functions as a hangar with an enclosed lift giving access to hangar on the lower decks for storage.

In the scenario the NZ does not have a fighter wing, and fighters are therefore not needed. What the rebel force would need is combat support, where the VSTOLs would be more than sufficient, as well as providing a strike capability against reenforcements arriving in ships. I am not talking about really operating these machines from the container ship, but just launching them when landing the rebel forces and establishing a base on land.

The ships would not necessaraly embark from Burma, but could be seiled from innocous embarkations. No problem with camouflaging these as civilian vessels with perfectly legal busyness in NZ. Be advised, this was actually done by the Germans when they invaded Norway in 1945. There were a number of innocent looking merchant ships in different Norwegian ports awaiting the strike force, carrying both soldiers, supplies, weapons and in one instance, even horses, without this arousing any suspicion. Some of these ships had been there for weeks.

Even when one such merchant ship was sunk by a british sub outside Arendal and dead soldiers started drifting ashore, no one raised the alarm. I wager the scenario is not at all as fanciful as you seem to think.

Alright, if we must play this game.

Fanciful component number 1.

The aircraft you were attempting to refer to is the Yak-38. It was an unsuccessful VTOL design and has been retired from service for nearly 20 years.

Where would Burmese, Laotion, Cambodian or Somali pirates acquire:

A. The aircraft.

B. Weapons.

C. Support infra-structure.

D. The training and competence required to operate ship-borne VTOL aircraft?

How would they support it? The Burmese airforce (if there even IS such a thing, which I'm not sure of) has no corporate knowledge of this aircraft and certainly no ability to support it.

Fanciful component number 2.

That the British operated STOVL aircraft from container ships.

No they didn't. They transported STOVL aircraft using container ships. They operated the aircraft from their aircraft carriers.

These ships were 14,900 ton RO-RO ships that had to be quickly and quite openly modified to do this. Most everyone knew what was happening, including the Argentines who subsequently fired an Exocet missile at one of these ships.

It was known as the Atlantic Conveyer...

Despite being such large ships, they were capable of carrying a total of 6x Harriers, a piece...

Fanciful component number 3.

Your "surprise" invasion is underway and NZ is not asking for any sort of help from her allies.

Even if the NZ Army, which you give so little credence to (obviously never having had anything to do with them) could somehow be stopped from destroying these aircraft on land by this motley collection you call the "rebel force", do you HONESTLY think Australia is going to sit here, a mere four hours flying time away and simply let NZ be bombed by an invasion force equipped with Yak-38's?

A flight of 4x RAAF Hornets would clean up any Yak-38 force that could be put together by anyone, let alone a bunch of pirates...

A Yak-38 was a VTOL aircraft that had such limited payload and fuel, it had to be operated as a "conventional" take off and landing aircraft. It had little to no air to air capability and was in reality little more than a training capability for the USSR which was anxiously trying to get into the naval aviation field.

Fanciful component number 4:

That this force could even travel all the way to NZ without detection.

It would have to sail through Australian waters. Your scenario equated to a situation where precisely EVERY foreign ship travelling through Australian waters would be checked by RAAF P-3C Orion aircraft and/or Australian Customs maritime patrol aircraft.

As you can see from this photo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MV_Atlantic_Conveyor_Harrier.jpg

There is no practical way to conceal the carriage aboard a ship of aircraft.

In such a wartime footing, such a vessel would most likely be sunk in Australian waters.

Your container ship and rebel force would last about as long as the Pong Su did...

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2006/mar/20060323c/Pong_Su_sinking.mpg



That's all I can be bothered pointing out at this time. I don't have any problem with anyone on this site. If you are going to post a lot of nonsense, however, be prepared to be called out upon it.

 

[OPSSG]

Hopefully the Singaporeans won't mind if we borrow their 155mm tracked howitzers being stored in NZ (in central highland NZ - well away from any port invasion), ahem, we could be moving them out of harms way for them!

Oh, you'll be surprised at how grateful we are to NZ for allowing our artillery to train in your country all these years.

You may find that our people will immediately find the urge to shift all the 155mm howitzers stored there and move any other equipment into the NZ Army's required positions, at your direction and in support of your efforts.

What's a few guns between friends... Assuming any fleet can even hope to travel through key choke points (which is very unlikely with all the intelligence assets flying or floating around)...

 

[recce.k1]

Oh, you'll be surprised at how grateful we are to NZ for allowing our artillery to train in your country all these years.

You may find that our people will immediately find the urge to shift all the 155mm howitzers stored there and move any other equipment into the NZ Army's required positions, at your direction and in support of your efforts.

What's a few guns between friends... Assuming any fleet can even hope to travel through key choke points (which is very unlikely with all the intelligence assets flying or floating around)...

Well, Singapore has a very, very close defence relationship with Australia/NZ/US/UK etc.

Anyway I was posting tongue in cheek - NZ doesn't have 155mm ammo so unless you guys have some stored here, we might be out of luck! Maybe the Govt should buy a few war stocks just in case!

(Pssst, say, do some of your Singapore Garrison/501st Legion Stormtroopers wanna hang out on our Death Star when we finish building it)?

 

[Mr Ignorant]

The thing is, these squadrons that were disbanded, generated a lot of criticism for the then Labour government. No 75 squadron, if I am not mistaken, was a heritage squadron of the RAF, so i think most kiwis tend not too be to hurt about this compared to say, the All Blacks losing

Does New Zealand actually have the financial resources to raise these squadrons in the future? I am not too certain, what I do know is, there was some concern in Britain, as a Welsh colleague of mine did comment that the RAF were recruiting experienced RNZAF pilots quite promptly. Any prospects for a raised No 75 Squadron is I think , wishful thinking at best. There are talks about re-activating the Aermacchis they currently have mothballed somewhere, but I really don't see this being achievable beyond building the Deathstar and garrisoning the 501st Legion there nfloorl:

The Kiwis could always do the Haka to scare off Tourist Invaders :

 

[recce.k1]

The thing is, these squadrons that were disbanded, generated a lot of criticism for the then Labour government. No 75 squadron, if I am not mistaken, was a heritage squadron of the RAF, so i think most kiwis tend not too be to hurt about this compared to say, the All Blacks losing :

Yes, the 1930's Labour Govt ordered Wellington twin-engineed bombers just prior to the WW2 outbreak (as a cheaper option rather than expanding the Navy) and gifted the aircraft and aircrews to the UK once WW2 commenced. They became 75 Sqn (RAF). After WW2, an appreciative UK allowed the RNZAF inherit the 75 Sqn mantle etc. Obviously some 50-60 years later most kiwis would be unaware of this heritage nor probably even care much about it as one would expect (as things like this aren't taught in school history anymore etc).

The Kiwis could always do the Haka to scare off Tourist Invaders :

Nah, if any invader managed to evade the mightly resources of the USN, ADF and other Asean counties first, the first thing NZ will do is deploy its secret weapon, which is the Peace Squadron Yachting Flotilla (they are pretty experienced after years of attempting to block entry of US Warships into NZ harbours), filled to the brim with all our wonderful nay-sayers, peace-niks and radicals - they know better than everyone else of course so their primary task is to talk the rebel invaders into peace and love and remind them that they are contributing to global warming by travelling so far. Either they will suceed and talk them out of it (and become national heros - an appreciative govt will then agree to ditch the NZDF as a waste of money), or else the rebel crew, exhausted after weeks of evading various military chokepoints and ice-bergs, may decide that they have accomplised their mission by capturing these "infidels" for propaganda purposes and turn back home. After all, what excellent luck to have all these atheist infidels gifted to them from the gods. (And no - sorry Peace Flotilla, you can't have a RNZN escort because when this event happens, you would have succeded in getting rid of the ANZAC Frigates by then!)

 

[Mr Ignorant]

It's strange, in a space of two generations, the Kiwis opted for disbanding their, as you say, historical squadrons. These formations have its roots in the RAF, so I think a few people were very concerned about what (what is helen clark?) the Premier allowed to happen. Not least because recently at the time, the BBC or was it Channel 4 (i am not too sure which) commissioned a programme on the RNZAF last batch of recruits and televised it nationally at the time, raising awareness of the fate of these recruits. I watched it, it was interesting, but it was also sad to see their faces, knowing that a few would graduate and leave the services for the RAF and RAAF, and others would remain to be helicopter pilots. I particularly recalled this one last scene of a RNZAF (Flight Officer) giving a right rollicking to one of the recruits for having flown the Aermacchi in a "scamping" manner nfloorl: Well put I say, end of an era stuff.

 

[Simon9]

Historical squadrons can easily be re-formed if the need is there. It gives them an instant heritage, too, so it's advantageous for morale and unit identity. When a unit is retired its colours are laid up, and if it is to be reformed, the colours are retrieved and presented again, and the unit takes up where it left off. So you don't need to think of those historical units as 'gone' - they're just taking a break for a while.

I personally would like to see NZ get a fighter squadron again, of light multirole combat aircraft - Gripen or F-16 seems ideal. With the rise of 4.5th and 5th gen aircraft there will be a glut of fairly capable F-16s on the market soon.

The reasons for NZ needing combat aircraft in low- to medium-intensity situations are quite obvious. For low-intensity, EEZ security (particularly in an increasingly unstable world with potential climate change etc), airspace control, potential counter-terrorism tasks. For medium-intensity, close air support during expeditionary operations (which may be in the Pacific). NZ is currently using Orions as its only fixed-wing CAS - Orions armed with 'dumb' bombs. This is particularly dangerous during guerilla warfare where targeting is difficult at the best of times. We can probably safely assume they are not going to be used short of an invasion of New Zealand itself.

But even for high-intensity warfare contingencies I would argue there is good reason for NZ to have combat aircraft. Firstly for morale - anybody who's been on Exercises as a ground-pounder will know how uplifting it is to see friendly jets overhead, and how disheartening it is to be under enemy air attack! Knowing my military didn't have any combat aircraft would certainly demoralise me.

Secondly is just the sheer consequences of losing air superiority in modern warfare. In modern, high intensity conventional warfare, loss of air superiority is about the most severe thing that can happen to you. As such it is something that needs to be kept in mind. In NZ's case it's not about "how are we going to win long-term air superiority" so much as it's about "how are we going to keep from losing air superiority long enough for Australia and/or the US to come to our aid."

In that situation, a squadron modern fighters could make an important contribution, even if it's only to delay the enemy by forcing them to keep their ships out to sea until they're certain they've neutralised the NZAF.

Of course the situation is extremely unlikely, but history should teach us that these things do tend to come out of nowhere. Whether it's the Russians' surprise at Barbarossa, Yom Kippur, the Falklands invasion, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and even more recent conflicts such as those triggered by 9/11, Hezbollah-Israel, the Russia-Georgia conflict, the list goes on... One day your country is fine, the next it's embroiled in fierce fighting, often with absolutely no warning. NZ is in an extremely safe geostrategic position at the moment, but the world is poised to potentially undergo a rapid geopolitical shift in the next 50 years, particularly if Climate Change realities continue to be worse than predictions.

In response to the comment about earthquakes and tsunamis - In another life I was a seismologist, and I can tell you that yes, that is a FAR more realistic and imminent threat to a New Zealander's property than invasion! Jet fighters should certainly not be bought at the expense of a good tsunami warning system and a good seismological network.

 

[Bozoo]

Alright, if we must play this game.

Fanciful component number 1.

The aircraft you were attempting to refer to is the Yak-38. It was an unsuccessful VTOL design and has been retired from service for nearly 20 years.

Where would Burmese, Laotion, Cambodian or Somali pirates acquire:

A. The aircraft.

B. Weapons.

C. Support infra-structure.

D. The training and competence required to operate ship-borne VTOL aircraft?

How would they support it? The Burmese airforce (if there even IS such a thing, which I'm not sure of) has no corporate knowledge of this aircraft and certainly no ability to support it.

Thanks for your comments. Greatly appreciated.

A couple of questions.

First of all, I'm quite surprised as to the extent purely military scenarios are expected to be anchoured in reality as to the socio-politcal background necessary for the scenario to develop. Like where one could aquire the aircraft.

Obviously, a theoretical scenario could be a perfectly viable scenario, even if the author does not actually know where to aquire the aircraft.

Actually, it turns out, it is neither difficult nor very expensive to aquire obsolecent jet fighters, although I have no direct knowlegde as to whether or not it is possible to buy Yak 38's.

What I do know is that 20 year old ex Yougoslavian jet fighters can be bought for less than USD 50.000, in flightworthy condition. You get 5 for the price of three. I have a friend who bought 3 a year ago. No hassle. If this can be done from Norway without problems, obviously a dedicated pirate triumvirate of Somali rebels, Burmese military and wealthy drug lords could do this without problems.

I am also baffled about all the comments about servicability. I have another friend who bought a number of ex mil German Aluette II helicopters along with a shitload of parts for no more than approx USD 350.000. He puts these machines together, maintains them and keep them in flight worthy status himself, purely as a hobby. Under Norwegian FAA rules. What he's doing is really no more than what a lot of people are doing to vintage cars. It's really not that big a deal.

I realise that he is not maintaining the weapon systems, which would probably serve up some extra difficulties, but I don't think it would be impossible.

I absolutely understand that I must be preprared to be called out if I post rubbish. The problem here beeing that I'm not really impressed when someone just flatly decides that something that I know is possible is rubbish. This especially when it concerns maintenance problems. I have met this in the Midtguardian defence threads as well, and I must admit it makes me question the competence of my critics when people infer that maintenance of a number of different vehicles would be beyound the capability of a country of 100.000 citizens. I myself maintain an ex mil Landrover command car as a hobby, and its really not that big a deal.

On the other hand I do see the problems with training and would therefore perhaps rethink the scenario and scrap the Yaks and replace this with UH1D gunships bolstered with on board crew firing Stingers out of the open door. Last time I heard (admittingly some time ago, you could buy these in Peshawar for USD 1000.

Sorry, Digger, I still don't think the scenario is as unrealistic as all that, althuogh it obviously needs some polishing.

Finally, my point is not to put down the gyus and gals of NZ Army, on the contrary, my point is that the politicians have a responsibility to let thses guys have the necessary hardware when (not if) the shit hits the fan.

Back home here in Norway in 1940 we had guys trying to beat off Me 110's, Panzer IIs and SS troops with Krag-Jørgensen bolt action rifles and shotguns. Because the politicians refused to accept the necessity of defence. But when the chips were down, our young men were sent out to fight more or less with their bare hands, a disgrace.

Today we are sitting on a pile of money, oil rigs in the North sea and enough defence to protect a small town. Up for grabs if you ask me. Worse off than in 1940. This is what the NZ should be ware of. Because the blood will flow anyway. I'd prefer my son to have some hardware tp shoot back with, if you ask me.

 

[OPSSG]

Actually, it turns out, it is neither difficult nor very expensive to aquire obsolecent jet fighters, although I have no direct knowlegde as to whether or not it is possible to buy Yak 38's.

What I do know is that 20 year old ex Yougoslavian jet fighters can be bought for less than USD 50.000, in flightworthy condition. You get 5 for the price of three. I have a friend who bought 3 a year ago. No hassle. If this can be done from Norway without problems, obviously a dedicated pirate triumvirate of Somali rebels, Burmese military and wealthy drug lords could do this without problems.

I am also baffled about all the comments about servicability. I have another friend who bought a number of ex mil German Aluette II helicopters along with a shitload of parts for no more than approx USD 350.000. He puts these machines together, maintains them and keep them in flight worthy status himself, purely as a hobby. Under Norwegian FAA rules. What he's doing is really no more than what a lot of people are doing to vintage cars. It's really not that big a deal.

I realise that he is not maintaining the weapon systems, which would probably serve up some extra difficulties, but I don't think it would be impossible.

I absolutely understand that I must be preprared to be called out if I post rubbish. The problem here being that I'm not really impressed when someone just flatly decides that something that I know is possible is rubbish. This especially when it concerns maintenance problems. I have met this in the Midtguardian defence threads as well, and I must admit it makes me question the competence of my critics when people infer that maintenance of a number of different vehicles would be beyound the capability of a country of 100.000 citizens. I myself maintain an ex mil Landrover command car as a hobby, and its really not that big a deal.

@Bozoo,

There are 2 ways to learn. People can spoon feed you or you can learn by yourself.

Why don't you consider talking a self-directed learning exercise in criticizing you own post above. Think of the conceptual problems and the actual problems. Go into as much detail as you can - just on the problems of buying, arming and operating aircraft as a rich dictator bent and with a strange fixation on invading NZ.

If I tell you what is wrong, you will generate counter arguments. It is always possible to generate counter arguments. However, not all counter arguments make sense. If you cannot generate counter arguments to your post, you have not understood the points made.

Please also read this link that I also provided in another thread on war games. All plans are at least subjected to war gaming. Certain types of war games are sometimes called technical exercises without troops (TEWT) and there are war games that are full troop exercises. Please also try to engage in a simple TEWT exercise via your reply post.

I prefer to be mild in my responses. Treat this as a learning exercise and we can learn together.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yak 38 aren't going to happen. Firstly there was only 230 production models made.Given that this type of aircraft is maintence heavy (as are all VTOL fixed wing jets), losses during use (quiet high I belive) and the short level of operations they are "not on the market". If they were they would be highly sort after by collectors and other nations. Theres of lot of yak 38 development that would be of interest to the US itself so Im sure russia isn't selling those off just yet..

Even if they were purchase, operatable, pilots trained (extensively), the range and payload isn't going to be terribly useful. Certainly they would be chewed by the squadrons of F-18's (and soon superhornets) that would be

Money would be better spent on purchasing or arming helicopters. Given NZ doesn't have an organic fast combat jet, helicopters would be fine for that operation.

 

[Bozoo]

Yak 38 aren't going to happen. Firstly there was only 230 production models made.Given that this type of aircraft is maintence heavy (as are all VTOL fixed wing jets), losses during use (quiet high I belive) and the short level of operations they are "not on the market". If they were they would be highly sort after by collectors and other nations. Theres of lot of yak 38 development that would be of interest to the US itself so Im sure russia isn't selling those off just yet..

Even if they were purchase, operatable, pilots trained (extensively), the range and payload isn't going to be terribly useful. Certainly they would be chewed by the squadrons of F-18's (and soon superhornets) that would be

Money would be better spent on purchasing or arming helicopters. Given NZ doesn't have an organic fast combat jet, helicopters would be fine for that operation.

As you can see from my last post I allready gave up the idea of using the Yaks. Mainly because they don't work very well, they're obviously not on the market and they are really not necessary, so, I think the rebel force would opt for helicopters.

 

[Todjaeger]

As you can see from my last post I allready gave up the idea of using the Yaks. Mainly because they don't work very well, they're obviously not on the market and they are really not necessary, so, I think the rebel force would opt for helicopters.

There are still a few problems/considerations around use of military aircraft and hardware, regardless of what or how they are accquired.

While the hypothetical force might very well be able to get their hands on some aircraft, be it fixed or rotary wing, through various official or unofficial channels... Arming said aircraft is a whole other level of complication on top of what is needed to keep an aircraft operational. Various military/intel agencies and organizations tend to keep track of who is getting which particular weapons, particularly for complicated systems to AGM, SSM, PGM, etc. As such, different groups are going to take notice if some force somewhere is gather such weapons. This information might not become public domain, but it unlikely that different interested parties would be entirely ignorant.

Also, in order to successfully employ such munitions (which is required to make the aircraft purchase worthwhile for more than just aerial trucking...) the pilots and ground troops and support crews need to train with and on them. This is something that takes time, additional resources and ordnance. Without the training, the ground forces will not know when or how to call in strikes or CAS, the pilots will not be as capable of hitting designated or detected targets, and the aircraft and/or ordnance might not correctly or successfully deploy.

If, and I repeat IF, the above is accomplished (standard training for most militaries) the the attacking force still encounters all the difficulties relating to NZ's geograpical location and the various friends and allies.

Hence so much of the feeling why such a scenario is so unrealistic.

-Cheers

 

[Crunchy]

One thing, which comes to my mind when the talk is about rebel/tangos forces:

Every f* rich can buy private/business jets (you can even buy A380 privately). So I wonder: Why haven't the tangos bought a jet/jets and use it for an attack/tranportation?
Create some dummy corps to disguise it?

(I know the Tamil Tigers have also used some prop planes to drop some grenades/IED onto Srilankan forces.)

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for your comments. Greatly appreciated.

A couple of questions.

First of all, I'm quite surprised as to the extent purely military scenarios are expected to be anchoured in reality as to the socio-politcal background necessary for the scenario to develop. Like where one could aquire the aircraft.

Obviously, a theoretical scenario could be a perfectly viable scenario, even if the author does not actually know where to aquire the aircraft.

Actually, it turns out, it is neither difficult nor very expensive to aquire obsolecent jet fighters, although I have no direct knowlegde as to whether or not it is possible to buy Yak 38's.

What I do know is that 20 year old ex Yougoslavian jet fighters can be bought for less than USD 50.000, in flightworthy condition. You get 5 for the price of three. I have a friend who bought 3 a year ago. No hassle. If this can be done from Norway without problems, obviously a dedicated pirate triumvirate of Somali rebels, Burmese military and wealthy drug lords could do this without problems.

I am also baffled about all the comments about servicability. I have another friend who bought a number of ex mil German Aluette II helicopters along with a shitload of parts for no more than approx USD 350.000. He puts these machines together, maintains them and keep them in flight worthy status himself, purely as a hobby. Under Norwegian FAA rules. What he's doing is really no more than what a lot of people are doing to vintage cars. It's really not that big a deal.

I realise that he is not maintaining the weapon systems, which would probably serve up some extra difficulties, but I don't think it would be impossible.

I absolutely understand that I must be preprared to be called out if I post rubbish. The problem here beeing that I'm not really impressed when someone just flatly decides that something that I know is possible is rubbish. This especially when it concerns maintenance problems. I have met this in the Midtguardian defence threads as well, and I must admit it makes me question the competence of my critics when people infer that maintenance of a number of different vehicles would be beyound the capability of a country of 100.000 citizens. I myself maintain an ex mil Landrover command car as a hobby, and its really not that big a deal.

On the other hand I do see the problems with training and would therefore perhaps rethink the scenario and scrap the Yaks and replace this with UH1D gunships bolstered with on board crew firing Stingers out of the open door. Last time I heard (admittingly some time ago, you could buy these in Peshawar for USD 1000.

Sorry, Digger, I still don't think the scenario is as unrealistic as all that, althuogh it obviously needs some polishing.

Finally, my point is not to put down the gyus and gals of NZ Army, on the contrary, my point is that the politicians have a responsibility to let thses guys have the necessary hardware when (not if) the shit hits the fan.

Back home here in Norway in 1940 we had guys trying to beat off Me 110's, Panzer IIs and SS troops with Krag-Jørgensen bolt action rifles and shotguns. Because the politicians refused to accept the necessity of defence. But when the chips were down, our young men were sent out to fight more or less with their bare hands, a disgrace.

Today we are sitting on a pile of money, oil rigs in the North sea and enough defence to protect a small town. Up for grabs if you ask me. Worse off than in 1940. This is what the NZ should be ware of. Because the blood will flow anyway. I'd prefer my son to have some hardware tp shoot back with, if you ask me.

1. NZ operates the Mistral SAM system, which is a very modern and quite advanced short ranged air defence system. This system is (or will be soon), cued by a modern radar surveillance and target acquisition system.

NZ has a quite capable, though relatively small defence force. Under some sort of invasion scenario it would be quite capable of generating 3-4000 troops (with the Territorials soldiers called up). This force is supported by 105mm artillery and 81mm mortars, 25mm cannon armed NZLAV armoured vehicles and Pinzgauer light operational and light armoured vehicles, javelin and Carl Gustav 84mm anti-armour weapons and an excellent small arms capability.

NZ maintains a UH-1H helo transport capability which is the process of being supplemented with A-109 light utility helos and eventually replaced by NH-90 transport helos.

NZ operates a P-3K Orion capability, which maintains a capable maritime and overland surveillance capability.

NZ operates an SH-2G Seasprite capability which has a demonstrated strike capability with the AGM-65 Maverick missile capability.

NZ maintains 2x ANZAC frigates which have a 127mm gun capability and a SAM defence capability, which is being upgraded.

NZ maintains an SAS capability which is highly regarded amongst "Western" Special Operations forces.

NZ police maintains a significant Counter Terrorism capability within it's "armed offenders squad" and has other armed police elements, available for deployment when necessary.

NZ has strong relationship with the major powers within the Pacific region (USA, Australia, Singapore, France and Malaysia) and strong ties with major European powers, UK etc

NZ is not exactly a "soft target", nor is it helpless in the face of your proposed "rebel force".



2. Operating a military capability in a military role is far different from operating a warbird.

A warbird has the luxury of spending time on maintenance at the owners leisure and of sourcing parts, expertise and operating the aircraft in a secure civilian environment.

An operational fighter has to be able to generate sorties under hostile conditions, most probably under constant attack from strike tasked helos, naval vessels, conventional land infantry, armoured and artillery forces and special forces operations.

It has to be capable of operating in a hostile environment under tactical conditions, a LONG way from any possible support base.

Your CTOL aircraft equipped force now needs a capability to sieze and hold an airfield and defend it from attack.

I think you might be underestimating the challenge a tad...

 

[dave_kiwi]

1. NZ operates the Mistral SAM system, which is a very modern and quite advanced short ranged air defence system. This system is (or will be soon), cued by a modern radar surveillance and target acquisition system.

..

See here:

http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/current-acquisition-projects/vllad.html and here:

http://www.army.mil.nz/at-a-glance/news/media-releases/media-release.htm@guid={0342f91c-ef99-4219-b899-e96a2c299397}.htm

Believe, though I cannot remember which issue, the NZ Army News (http://www.army.mil.nz/at-a-glance/news/army-news/default.htm) had a nice article about VLLADS -- they have a nice new building at Linton which houses a "simulator" for VLLADS trainin

 

[Sea Toby]

Considering the distance to New Zealand from just about everywhere except Australia, I don't see how anyone could sustain a supply line. While the troops might arrive unnoticed, very unlikely though, the number of supply ships would be noticed.

While its true New Zealand does not have an air combat force, it woudn't take long for New Zealand allies to provide one. I would think the RAAF and the USAF, not to mention other nations, could fly in aircraft within a day, or days. But even if an invader could take every airfield with the first strike, they would have problems sustaining their air and sea supply lines. The allied aircraft could fly to bases within reach of the supply line from whatever agressor's country to New Zealand, including the aggressor's neighboring countries. Any such supply line will be under attack even from the aggressor's home waters.

No such enemy threat exists. And I doubt seriously whether the USA would ever attempt such an invasion as long as the USA maintains a defence treaty with Australia, along as Australia maintains a defence treaty with New Zealand.

 

[shanes_world_05]

perhaps?

Hey guys,

Frankly I find it hard to think that any invasion (well military invasion) would be possible of little old NZ. But to be fair in the event of say such a massive denigration of the global security situation would it not be a bad strategy to try to isolate the little and vulnerable trading countries like ours prompting the need of US or Australian forces, which would dilute the forces available to another theatre? I am not sure how this would work. Just throwing it out there.
But say I am a middle eastern/ south-east asian country, or anyone that joins an alliance with the collective might to even comtemplate challenging Western forces supremacy. Why might we do this - resource scramble, sick of the terms of western financial institutions, Disagreements over the finalist of Americas Idol...whos to say. We have in our inventory and the inventory or other nations a couple of or couple of hundred conventional subs with the range to patrol largely unassisted (surface resupply would be possible - again with well disguised merchant ships with a convincing registry history - genuine or concocted. But again I think massively risky). We decide that US carrier avaiation is a threat that is substantial and strategic in deciding the outcomeof any confrontation or conflict. Not silly. Cos it has been before. Maybe we experiment to direct that said carrier avaiation or elements of it away from the main theatres of war by sending a sub or two to pillage or sink commercial shipping in far away waters. Or too place them in predictable routes to a major theatre which may give an advantage to another staged force in ambush in close waters where force concentration and proximity favours the hostile powers sub forces. Even the carrier (which I wouldn't think is the primary ASW tool) might not be utilised for the sub hunt but the escorts are, that would strip away the escort numbers perhaps exposing the CSG to possibility of a meaningful strike by other forces.
NZ waters or more likely our sea lines of communication are targeted amongst others and we don't have an invasion but near enough as it might come to because our economy would be strained by such a degree that can not function as a viable nation for the timebeing. Sudden change brings sudden trauma perhaps.
While this does not justify a strike jet wing nor a likely threat it I think poses a plausible threat with some seriousness to it. But I think the above is the most likely we'll have to seriously consider.
While a container ship of mercs or commando types is a pretty major undertaking with perhaps little in the way of real operational longevity (cos they would be pounded in time, the americans are really good at it) but it is a way to knock out a ally of the western powers in a way that might leverage maybe their greatest advantage - surprise (Maybe). And
think Bozoo its good to comtemplate about it but not too worry about it. Foreign corporations have been invading NZ for decades and to my knowledge no military response was needed (that might change once I'm dictator...joking)
I think whether we talking invasion or being cut off from our mates I think we need alot stronger maritime patrol and anti submarine capability. Because we can train infantry men in six months (well partially - I used to be one of sorts and I would never describe myself as competent in that time...or anytime really ). But decent long range patrol aircraft with a combat capability to deal with surface raiders and subs wouldn't be de decided on in sixty months with our political and social systems let alone operational and well excercised.

By the way I am not an expert and this is just my thoughts which are free and open to being pulled apart by I wont argue about them cos alot of you know alot more than me.

Anyway Bozoo I thank you for your concern about NZ's security situation (as non threatened as it is) because too few people do (except here of course)

Cheers
Shane

 

[Bozoo]

1. NZ operates the Mistral SAM system, which is a very modern and quite advanced short ranged air defence system. This system is (or will be soon), cued by a modern radar surveillance and target acquisition system.

NZ has a quite capable, though relatively small defence force. Under some sort of invasion scenario it would be quite capable of generating 3-4000 troops (with the Territorials soldiers called up). This force is supported by 105mm artillery and 81mm mortars, 25mm cannon armed NZLAV armoured vehicles and Pinzgauer light operational and light armoured vehicles, javelin and Carl Gustav 84mm anti-armour weapons and an excellent small arms capability.

NZ maintains a UH-1H helo transport capability which is the process of being supplemented with A-109 light utility helos and eventually replaced by NH-90 transport helos.

NZ operates a P-3K Orion capability, which maintains a capable maritime and overland surveillance capability.

NZ operates an SH-2G Seasprite capability which has a demonstrated strike capability with the AGM-65 Maverick missile capability.

NZ maintains 2x ANZAC frigates which have a 127mm gun capability and a SAM defence capability, which is being upgraded.

NZ maintains an SAS capability which is highly regarded amongst "Western" Special Operations forces.

NZ police maintains a significant Counter Terrorism capability within it's "armed offenders squad" and has other armed police elements, available for deployment when necessary.

NZ has strong relationship with the major powers within the Pacific region (USA, Australia, Singapore, France and Malaysia) and strong ties with major European powers, UK etc

NZ is not exactly a "soft target", nor is it helpless in the face of your proposed "rebel force".

I agree. My rebel forces will be well and truly clobbered. The point of my scenario was mainly to suggest a situation where the rescources of NZ's allies US, Australia and UK where tied up to a degree where NZ would have to rely more or less on it self.

I generally believe that many countries rely to much on others coming to the aid in times of trouble. This is all well and fine until these countries themselves come under attack. The risk is that when the shit really hits the fan, the good guys are busy.

I also agree that with the defence resources presently availiable to NZ government, they would be more than enough to repel any conceivable rebel threat. Good for you NZ, but. please, keep it up!

Finally, I think it's obvious that, even though busy elsewhere, especially the US would find itself capable of lending a fighter wing to NZ if they can't survive without jet fighters.

 

[Bozoo]

2. Operating a military capability in a military role is far different from operating a warbird.

A warbird has the luxury of spending time on maintenance at the owners leisure and of sourcing parts, expertise and operating the aircraft in a secure civilian environment.

An operational fighter has to be able to generate sorties under hostile conditions, most probably under constant attack from strike tasked helos, naval vessels, conventional land infantry, armoured and artillery forces and special forces operations.

It has to be capable of operating in a hostile environment under tactical conditions, a LONG way from any possible support base.

Your CTOL aircraft equipped force now needs a capability to sieze and hold an airfield and defend it from attack.

I think you might be underestimating the challenge a tad...

Obviusly. Next time I'll spend more time constructing a viable attack force.

Thanks ever so much for taking the time to respond. I'll be heading back now to my H0 scale model world, where I'm currently contemplating commisioning a Frigate size ship for the Midtguardian navy. I've found a Vietnamese factory willing to produce one form the gound up at a reasonable price. I have to give it a good think, because I can only afford one ship.

It was fun, although somewhat challenging, to attempt to participate in the real world.

 

[Bozoo]

@Bozoo,

There are 2 ways to learn. People can spoon feed you or you can learn by yourself.

Why don't you consider talking a self-directed learning exercise in criticizing you own post above. Think of the conceptual problems and the actual problems. Go into as much detail as you can - just on the problems of buying, arming and operating aircraft as a rich dictator bent and with a strange fixation on invading NZ.

If I tell you what is wrong, you will generate counter arguments. It is always possible to generate counter arguments. However, not all counter arguments make sense. If you cannot generate counter arguments to your post, you have not understood the points made.

Please also read this link that I also provided in another thread on war games. All plans are at least subjected to war gaming. Certain types of war games are sometimes called technical exercises without troops (TEWT) and there are war games that are full troop exercises. Please also try to engage in a simple TEWT exercise via your reply post.

I prefer to be mild in my responses. Treat this as a learning exercise and we can learn together.

Thanks for your mild response. Some good suggestions there.

Exactly how can I engage in such a TEWT exercise? I'd be very interested. As an avidly interested armchair general for the Midtguardian defence forces, I need all the input I can get.

One small sidebar though. In actual exercises they just draw a slab of land in the middle of the atlantic, equip it with a host of fighter jets, long range bombers, missile launchers and so on and so forth without giving specifics as geopolitcal support capabilities, maintenance and stuff a second thought.