New Zealand invasion

[mattyem]

I'm new here so please be gentle.

As an Aussie(and having watched this thread for some weeks now) I felt it worthwhile to offer some observations.

I think we all know that an invasion of NZ in the near future is very unlikely. The thing this discussion has highlighted to me is the apparent lack of concern for any investment in defence in NZ - not so much by the posters , but by the politicians in general in NZ.
Our defence white paper made a specific mention of developing Australian & NZ interoperability and the potential to develop an ANZAC type deployment force. Seems like a sensible idea.
What really annoys me is the assumption that Australia+USA will look after any threat therefore the Kiwis don't really need to worry about anything.
Whilst I understand that NZ is not as wealthy as Australia there is no excuse for allowing the NZ Defence Forces to get into such a messy and rundown state.
I recall hearing with absolute amazement that the NZ Air Force was about to lose it's jet fighters some years ago. This sent a signal to the Australian public that the Kiwis were happy to "bludge" on the defence spending of the Australian taxpayer. We all must play our part , so let's at least get an ANZAC strike force organised...
BTW - let there be no doubt that we would consider any threat to NZ as a direct threat to us. This scenario would provoke a significant military reaction from us.
Apologies if I offended anyone with my remarks.

Don't worry about apologies mate, we are all entitled to our views and opinions.

Good points, though NZ has to have a close reliance on the it's allies becasue honestly and simply we can't be a lone fish in the big ocean of the world. This are what alliances are for, ie the 5 nations agreement!

I think one of the problems is that the NZ politicians have fallen into this PC idea that we dont want defence spending and they are all to scared to go anywhere near the idea of spending more money on defence. At current 1% of the budget is spent on defence which is poor to say the least, and to make matters worse, the MoD is spending money in the wrong place, on poor or worthless equipment. Good to note though is John Key said he would like to see the budget go up to 3 or 4%

In regards to losing the strike wing, I dont think ive talked to one person who liked that idea at all, it came out of the blue and f**ked off alot of military brass. Now we have an Air Service, aint nothing Force about it!

It's understandable that the Aussie public may see us as "bludging" its a modern world where modern military's rarely fight battles soley on their own, its a world of alliances, NATO being the prime example.

We are doing the best we can with our military, trying to structure it to best suit the world we live in. Honestly how useful is a vietnam era strike jet in the battle feild of today flying out of NZ.

 

[Twickiwi]

...
What really annoys me is the assumption that Australia+USA will look after any threat therefore the Kiwis don't really need to worry about anything.
Whilst I understand that NZ is not as wealthy as Australia there is no excuse for allowing the NZ Defence Forces to get into such a messy and rundown state.
I recall hearing with absolute amazement that the NZ Air Force was about to lose it's jet fighters some years ago. This sent a signal to the Australian public that the Kiwis were happy to "bludge" on the defence spending of the Australian taxpayer. We all must play our part , so let's at least get an ANZAC strike force organised...

NZ public opinion has turned its face from defence in the last 30 years, and the politicians are only representing the electorate's will. I don't think bludge is too strong a word to describe the trans-Tasman situation, as NZ has simultaneously taken the positions either that Australia is irrationally paranoid about Asia or that NZ's possible defence contribution is so insignificant as to be not missed if something threatens from the north. Both these positions become less tenable if confronted with analysis.

While NZ has a smaller GDP/head than the lucky country, growth hasn't been all that bad comparitively since 1990. The continuing farm products boom and the sucking sound that is China's demand for raw goods has meant things are better in historical terms than at any time except the post war boom. So no excuses there.

While Kiwis know that no-one can/will invade NZ territory, we are willfully blind to the meaningful threats to our security. The corollary to NZ's unconscious military dependence on Oz for territorial security is ignorance of the threat to Australia's territorial sovereignty. If some northern country was able impinge, threaten or (perish the thought:shudder) actually invade Australia's northern sphere of influence, NZ's sovereignty would be also threatened. If someone starts wailing on your bodyguard, you should know you're next.

In reality, New Zealand's defence curtain begins just south of E. Timor and PNG, 300km west of Perth and just north of our associated Pacific Island neighbours. And where is NZ? 1% of GDP that's where.

 

[exported_kiwi]

NZ public opinion has turned its face from defence in the last 30 years, and the politicians are only representing the electorate's will. I don't think bludge is too strong a word to describe the trans-Tasman situation, as NZ has simultaneously taken the positions either that Australia is irrationally paranoid about Asia or that NZ's possible defence contribution is so insignificant as to be not missed if something threatens from the north. Both these positions become less tenable if confronted with analysis.

While NZ has a smaller GDP/head than the lucky country, growth hasn't been all that bad comparitively since 1990. The continuing farm products boom and the sucking sound that is China's demand for raw goods has meant things are better in historical terms than at any time except the post war boom. So no excuses there.

While Kiwis know that no-one can/will invade NZ territory, we are willfully blind to the meaningful threats to our security. The corollary to NZ's unconscious military dependence on Oz for territorial security is ignorance of the threat to Australia's territorial sovereignty. If some northern country was able impinge, threaten or (perish the thought:shudder) actually invade Australia's northern sphere of influence, NZ's sovereignty would be also threatened. If someone starts wailing on your bodyguard, you should know you're next.

In reality, New Zealand's defence curtain begins just south of E. Timor and PNG, 300km east of Perth and just north of our associated Pacific Island neighbours. And where is NZ? 1% of GDP that's where.

Yeah, our politicians are pathetic. It's time for NZ to shoulder the weight. We should be able to "punch above our weight" but it seems that apathy has set in. I, for one, am disgusted!
Regarding an invasion, apart from what I've already said in this thread, are we foolish enough to allow ourselves the illusion that even 28 F16s would've made much difference, in the even that we got them? I'm of the opinion the best defence must always be the ability to carry a bl**dy big stick, and sadly, since my Dads, and my days, the stick has grown progressively smaller! C'mon NZ, face your responsibilities!

 

[StevoJH]

Yeah, our politicians are pathetic. It's time for NZ to shoulder the weight. We should be able to "punch above our weight" but it seems that apathy has set in. I, for one, am disgusted!
Regarding an invasion, apart from what I've already said in this thread, are we foolish enough to allow ourselves the illusion that even 28 F16s would've made much difference, in the even that we got them? I'm of the opinion the best defence must always be the ability to carry a bl**dy big stick, and sadly, since my Dads, and my days, the stick has grown progressively smaller! C'mon NZ, face your responsibilities!

Yes 28 F16's would make a difference, that roughly half the size of Australia's current active F/A18A++ Force and the RAAF with the support of the RNZAF would basically have more planes then any Nation closer to us then China or India. Singapore wouldn't be far behind Australia and New Zealand though.

 

[xhxi558]

Yes 28 F16's would make a difference, that roughly half the size of Australia's current active F/A18A++ Force and the RAAF with the support of the RNZAF would basically have more planes then any Nation closer to us then China or India. Singapore wouldn't be far behind Australia and New Zealand though.

You may be reaching a little there. By the time the 28 F16's became operable, the following airforces would be operating in the region (wiki):
- Aust 71 legacy Hornets and 24 Super Hornets
- Singapore 24 F15-SG and 74 F16 blk 52
- Thailand 60 older F16s
- Malaysia a mixture of 50 Russian & American fighters

 

[StevoJH]

You may be reaching a little there. By the time the 28 F16's became operable, the following airforces would be operating in the region (wiki):
- Aust 71 legacy Hornets and 24 Super Hornets
- Singapore 24 F15-SG and 74 F16 blk 52
- Thailand 60 older F16s
- Malaysia a mixture of 50 Russian & American fighters

The F16's would have been operable years ago had NZ accepted them, and the F18's don't enter service till next year. However 71 Hornets +24 SH's from the RAAF + 28 RNZAF F16's does, when combined, provide a larger force then any in the region outside of China and India. And in any defensive scenario for either Australia or New Zealand I cannot see the other nation being uninvolved.

 

[shag]

I don't think a surprise attack would involve first strike through naval landing parties. Many countries have a good airborne capability today.
India operates a large number of para-commandos, 1600 of which were deployed within hours by us in maldives during operation cactus. So I think we need to factor in threat from a airborne dimension, which will give little warning to a defending nation. Supplying troops in such a situation can be handled in similar way(by air) once airfields are captured. While there is highly improbable from India itself, China and possibly Indonesia too might have a good capability of doing that.

Lets talk about this scenario. Ships move in close to NZ waters but not close enough to arouse suspicion. Then the airborne assault takes place and major airfields are captured. The enemy gets ability of limited air operations from local airbases allowing them to supress any aid externally arriving to newzealand leading to a quick fall of local defenses.

However do note that in this scenario I am discounting the possiblity of Austrailian or US assistance once the invasion commences, and thats a big if. Especially in case where NZ doesn't arm itself such a action on te enemy's part will involve a even greater condemnation and possibly joint response from civilized world. The attacker would probably be isolated and punished. Not to mention after the initial days once the element of surprise is lost the enemy might find it very difficult to maintain the supplies through sea, unless there is a total supression of local defences and the vessels are also able to operate from NZ shores.

In any case I don't think arming itself is a good choice for NZ since little arming up would not achieve much against a powerful foe. Rather relying on powerful and more capable allies like US or austrailia along with security guarantees will assure much better defensive and political situation for New Zealand. Aggression is going to be considered much more unacceptable if it is against a New Zealand that has given up arms and was undefended. This itself will be a deterrent to anyone wanting to take a shot at land grab in NZ

 

[storywolf]

The question is can New Zealand be taken ?
Yes it actually can be done, it is totally possible and simple.

Why because people keep thinking that it cannot, and its neighbour Australia is there to stop any invasion. The size of New Zealand army is not huge just 4,500 full-time and 2,500 part-time troops, no tanks, 105 operating Light Armoured Vehicles, known as the NZLAV. The real size of fighting troops - is just 3000 in real, also they need to be armed in the first place to fight. Forget about the navy, they are useless unless they want to shoot their own town. Airforce - it is too insulting to even mention that hardly exist.

If some crazy country or organisation can spare 10,000 to 12,000 troops - 2 -3 huge cruise ship - to ferry them. Unless the NZ navy have been forewarning don't think they be intercepted.

Ok just imagine if the 2-3 ship manage to disembark a portion of troops - with some local transport secure before hand, they are able to move fast over night to secure the main armoury and LAVs, think without arms the fight is over fast. With 10,000 to 12,000 troops on ground, major cities and town is taken.

What about australia ? Yes it does have some advance planes and ships. But if you look carefully it is sadly lacking in range. 2 x Amphibious ship ? No tanker fleet for its air force ? F-111 is the only thing with any range in its inventory at the moment.

This is not normal warfare - it is a whole country taken hostage, frankly with the enemy side by side with civilains. There is no tanks, no direct target, militaty planes are of no use.

You can mount the large internation force to retake NZ, but the moment any troops or action will result in killing of mass hostages. Think if anyone is crazy enough and determine enough - it is clearly possible and even hold it.

 

[OPSSG]

shag and storywolf, a friendly word of advice, please read earlier posts in this thread - note that Mods (red handle), Snr Members (green handle) & current or former industry/military professionals (blue handle) have made comments relevant to your posts (and showing why you are wrong). Try to understand the past comments before going off on a tangent - you'll get along with the rest of the forum much better that way.

 

[Firn]

So given we assume a sudden assault out of nowwhere the question remains how is this shadowy invader able to sustain the military operation in NZ?

I think it would be good to look up to the Norwegian campaign in 1940 and the operations concerning the Falkland war to gather a good insight in the challanges an invasion poses.

Edit: And read the former posts as OPSSG already recommended

 

[shag]

shag and storywolf, a friendly word of advice, please read earlier posts in this thread - note that Mods (red handle), Snr Members (green handle) & current or former industry/military professionals (blue handle) have made comments relevant to your posts (and showing why you are wrong). Try to understand the past comments before going off on a tangent - you'll get along with the rest of the forum much better that way.

OPSSG,
I am only following the thread's topic. I read all the posts on this thread before commenting. Note that even in the scenario I mentioned how difficult if not impossible such a hypothetical attack. I also mentioned how I discounted the support available to NZ from allies, and how that is a big IF. Even a airborne assault which might have a limited chance of surprise in beginning against a water borne assault will not be sustainable. My own deductions have not been different from most mods or senior members, But I just gave the scenario a benefit of a different strategic plan and tried to show how that it is still very unlikely.
I understand the need for moderation but please try to understand the post before criticizing.
Respect,
Shag

 

[storywolf]

shag and storywolf, a friendly word of advice, please read earlier posts in this thread - note that Mods (red handle), Snr Members (green handle) & current or former industry/military professionals (blue handle) have made comments relevant to your posts (and showing why you are wrong). Try to understand the past comments before going off on a tangent - you'll get along with the rest of the forum much better that way.

OPSSG - are people here are divided into colors - you mention red, green , blue - isn't that same as rascist, thus people of no color have no right to post anything. You just assume that people given certain colors are the expert ?

I am a former military professional - thus i should be blue if by your standard. Thus if I am blue -so that give me right to speak !!!

Before 9-11 - did any military expert think that coordinating such an attack was possible ? Did any military expert think that there be a person call Osama would be able to build an army without borders that have operations in few front in the world ?

No ... people like you would have say - listen to the color folks they are the expert it is not possible... and try to shut up others.

Military tactics - is all about doing what other don't expect, and think it is impossible.

 

[OPSSG]

Your earlier post is counter intuitive and somewhat lacking in an understanding of NZ's context.

OPSSG - are people here are divided into colors - you mention red, green , blue - isn't that same as rascist, thus people of no color have no right to post anything. You just assume that people given certain colors are the expert ?

Please consider reading the thread, in particular, AD's and Todjaeger's posts - as they pertain to the points you raise.

Edit: The issue is not on any particular claim of expertise or racism - it's your inability to read and understand prior posts. And I was not even attacking your post - just pointing out that you have not read posts by others that contradict your position - before anyone else jumps on your post.

I am a former military professional - thus i should be blue if by your standard. Thus if I am blue -so that give me right to speak !!!

Please provide details of your service history, such as country of service and vocation. Like me, you can start your process of getting a blue handle by contacting the mods with the necessary supporting documentation of your service record - like your certificate of service.

Edit: If you indeed had relevant experience and want to talk about military tactics - you should have attended an orders group before and should not react in such a childish manner. Start with your concept of ops (at start state) and the logistics necessary. Thereafter, show me how you would generate:

(i) the collection plan,
(ii) the ECAs (the NZ troops will react),
(iii) the OPS Plan (to deploy your 12,000 troops),
(iv) the fire support plan, and
(v) the CSS plan,​

for your NZ invasion scenario. Imagine you are preparing an AOP for an invasion of the scale you suggest (please also state your desired end state).

Or were you in a service vocation during your active days? And don't know what is an AOP.

Before 9-11 - did any military expert think that coordinating such an attack was possible ? Did any military expert think that there be a person call Osama would be able to build an army without borders that have operations in few front in the world ?

No ... people like you would have say - listen to the color folks they are the expert it is not possible... and try to shut up others.

Military tactics - is all about doing what other don't expect, and think it is impossible.

And how is that relevant to NZ's defence from invasion? Don't try to change the topic to cover your inability to express your point of view persuasively, logically or coherently - somewhat like the standard of Lionoisy's posts in another forum. Rant all you want - but you'll get the respect that you deserve.

I'll let the others respond to you - I don't intend to engage in a totally counter productive exercise. I also see you are trying to fit into the definition of a category (2) poster.

 

[OPSSG]

shag, you've chosen to take a stand - good luck defending it!

...Many countries have a good airborne capability today.

India operates a large number of para-commandos, 1600 of which were deployed within hours by us in maldives during operation cactus. So I think we need to factor in threat from a airborne dimension, which will give little warning to a defending nation. Supplying troops in such a situation can be handled in similar way(by air) once airfields are captured. While there is highly improbable from India itself, China and possibly Indonesia too might have a good capability of doing that...

1. Why it can't be done - by country (Indonesia/India/China)
(a) The nearest country you mentioned - Indonesia does not currently have a significant airlift capability to conduct such an operation (nor is it likely to have such a capability in the near future) - google for news on their recent C-130 crash and other incidents. And as you mentioned there is the problem of Australia getting in the way.

(b) India and China currently do not have the ability to project their forces to NZ - there is a problem with range. Even without the USN and Australia, Singapore's air force also can stop any attempt to invade NZ by closing the air corridor from either India or China - if we are so motivated.

2. Why it can't be done - by concept of operations
(a) Even if by magic - an aggressor is able to get plane loads of armed men airborne, they would need to fly through defended air space. Australia forces or the USN will be able to intercept.

(b) Without close air support, if the planes attempt to land, the NZ forces (even without external help) will be able to take transport planes out via SAMs easily. It will be a turkey shoot.

(c) Singapore has a very close military relationship with NZ and I have a healthy respect for their capabilities. Therefore, to take on NZ's ground forces, the aggressor would need more than light infantry and a significant force ratio advantage, even if such an aggressor force could make a landing by air.

P.S. Initially, I was trying to save you from possibly a harsher reply from other members. Your reply post is going to encourage other forum members to express their point of view.

 

[swerve]

I don't think a surprise attack would involve first strike through naval landing parties. Many countries have a good airborne capability today.
India operates a large number of para-commandos, 1600 of which were deployed within hours by us in maldives during operation cactus. So I think we need to factor in threat from a airborne dimension, which will give little warning to a defending nation. Supplying troops in such a situation can be handled in similar way(by air) once airfields are captured....

What are the three most important factors? Location, location, & location . . . The Maldives are very close to India. New Zealand is a long way from anywhere.

Where will this hypothetical airborne assault be launched from? What transport aircraft are available? What is their range? Can they be refuelled in flight? If so, are refuelling aircraft What airfields are available? Where are they? What is their capacity? Are they secure? Can any air cover be provided?

Look at the answers to those questions, & you realise that an airborne assault on New Zealand is a very difficult thing. Think logistics, & that includes thinking about geography.

 

[Hoffy]

What about australia ? Yes it does have some advance planes and ships. But if you look carefully it is sadly lacking in range. 2 x Amphibious ship ? No tanker fleet for its air force ? F-111 is the only thing with any range in its inventory at the moment.

Defence Materiel Organisation

Perhaps I am misreading this info. but it certainly looks like the air re-fuelling capability is very close to being enabled.
Google is your friend.

 

[shag]

What are the three most important factors? Location, location, & location . . . The Maldives are very close to India. New Zealand is a long way from anywhere.

Where will this hypothetical airborne assault be launched from? What transport aircraft are available? What is their range? Can they be refuelled in flight? If so, are refuelling aircraft What airfields are available? Where are they? What is their capacity? Are they secure? Can any air cover be provided?

Look at the answers to those questions, & you realise that an airborne assault on New Zealand is a very difficult thing. Think logistics, & that includes thinking about geography.

I stated repeatedly how next to impossible maintaing logistics would be. So I don't disagree with those points. Singapore and others could block the attempts later when it comes to logistics and that was my opinion too, but since its a surprise attack the initial attack obviously could go unhindered.
As for mid air refullers, both China and India operate Il-78 mid air refuellers and il-76 long range transport aircraft.
Il -76 is a long range high endurance transport. in Operation cactus they took off from Agra(a northern city of India) travelled across India and reached Maldives without any stops. The range of the latest version of the transport is 5,800 Km(close to the distance they would have to travel) without refuelling at full load. With a mid air refuller the range gets extended quiet significantly and its quiet possible to reach say auckland airport from the south- eastern sea board of china and capture it.
However please do read my earlier post on the enormous constraints I put on this scenario before blasting me.

 

[StevoJH]

I stated repeatedly how next to impossible maintaing logistics would be. So I don't disagree with those points. Singapore and others could block the attempts later when it comes to logistics and that was my opinion too, but since its a surprise attack the initial attack obviously could go unhindered.
As for mid air refullers, both China and India operate Il-78 mid air refuellers and il-76 long range transport aircraft.
Il -76 is a long range high endurance transport. in Operation cactus they took off from Agra(a northern city of India) travelled across India and reached Maldives without any stops. The range of the latest version of the transport is 5,800 Km(close to the distance they would have to travel) without refuelling at full load. With a mid air refuller the range gets extended quiet significantly and its quiet possible to reach say auckland airport from the south- eastern sea board of china and capture it.
However please do read my earlier post on the enormous constraints I put on this scenario before blasting me.

Without flying over, or at least, flying within range of Australia?

 

[sunshin3]

Like StevoJH and Swerve had mentioned in their earlier postings, I find it extremely difficult to believe that countries like Australia and Singapore would not be able to detect the flight path of the invasion force. These two countries are allies of New Zealand and are unlikely not to react.

Even if Australia and Singapore were unable or unwilling to intercept the invasion force, mere detection by these two countries would provide the necessary early warning to their New Zealand counterparts.

Fyi, the approximate distance from India to New Zealand is 7,466 miles (12,016 kilometers or 6,488 nautical miles). And the distance from India to Maldives is approximately 1,440 miles (2,318 kilometers or 1,252 nautical miles). You will need to check your numbers.

Further, I am uncomfortable with the example of India's Operation Cactus as it was an unopposed landing that does not need to pass through the air space of other countries. I do not see how the example may be relevant.

 

[shag]

As for cactus I said it before, the distance from staging point was much greater(Agra?) so distance between the countries you cited is not relevant here but distance between the staging point and destination and the fact that resources used to launch it can be used to reach NZ from chinese coast.

with the invasion force keeping good distance from shore lines avoiding detection is not a remote possibility. I am talking about China as the theoretical invading force here, I use cactus as a example because both countries(India and China) have similar capabilities in that area.
Also the point to be noted about cactus here is that when the transports launched the availability of landing strip was not known and it was only convenient for them that a landing strip was available when they reached maldives, hence the use of fully equipped paras at staging point.

Cactus is also relevant because the strategy of the invading party for NZ can be compared to both the tamil rebels(who came by sea) and the indian forces coming by air. Maldives was quiet defenceless as a country which would be similar to a NZ situation without a serious army or navy.