Better to look at core NZ Treasury spending datasets in NZ dollars and not a Stockholm based NGO as the huge currency divergence between NZD-USD post the Asian Financial Crisis played havoc.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Thinking about it, the balance of risks is actually somewhat weighed towards the NZDF (or maybe it will be called the AoDF in the very near future?) becoming like the Irish Defence Force in terms of its force structure in the near future, with Australia and the US basically assuming the task of external defence, especially when you take into consideration domestic politics? The possibility of the air strike wing with jet fighters being restored basically 1 out of 1000000000000 for the foreseeable future.
The reason I used the SIPRI figures, is because they have standardized figures for all countries, unlike when you have to rely on the individual figures provided by different countries' governments, which can be prone to accounting magic, like the figures provided by China, or how France for the longest time included the amount spent on the Gendarmerie in its defence spending statistics. For example, there the question as to whether the amount spent on military pensions should be included in defence spending figures, since it is not really a civilian expense either, and for the US, how much it really spends on its nuclear deterrence is not that clear either.
The Hidden Costs of Our Nuclear Arsenal: Overview of Project Findings
This project was completed in August 1998 and resulted in the book Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940 edited by Stephen I. Schwartz. These project pages are…
www.brookings.edu
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
What "balance of risks" is actually weighted towards the NZDF?
In addition, aside from the ideological interests of some within NZ, why would NZ want the NZDF to become like the Irish Defence Force, when the diplomatic, economic, and strategic interests and concerns are quite different?
From a sovereignty standpoint, why would NZ wish to cede a sovereign task like external defence to a foreign power or powers? Any why would the US and/or Australia wish to assume responsibility for the external defence of NZ?
Takao
The Bunker Group
I read @ren0312's post differently to you - mainly that he is saying that it's likely that the way the NZDF is heading it will resemble the Irish Defence Force in terms of scope and overall capability. Basically a glorified police force. And I don't see how you could argue with that point - while the NZDF is bigger and it's geographical responsibilities are not comparable, over time it has progressively been degraded.
As to his second point; hasn't the US and Australia effectively provided external defence of NZ for the past 20 - 30 years? Well, they + geography. Yes NZ has it's own government and strategy, it's own diplomatic relations (including ones regionally that are superior to us and we rely on heavily because of that), and contributions to military operations in the region and Middle East, but it doesn't really have the depth or offensive capability to defend the nation. I have sat in meetings where the feasibility of offloading significant parts of remaining capability to Australia were debated - and the meetings were requested from NZ, not us.
I'm not questioning the people - I have in the past and will in the future serve with NZDF personnel and from my point of view they are no different to Brits or Australians - utterly dependable, highly professional and look out for their mates. But the successive government policies, for good or for bad, have made the NZDF much more constabulary (ie, like the Irish Defence Force) than military (like Australia or Singapore).
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It certainly does look like I read it differently.
I also would not argue that a number of the successive decisions made regarding the size, kit, and overall capabilities of the NZDF has seemed to make it more of a constabulary organization, rather than a defence force charged with securing a nation, it's people and territories. OTOH since the departure of a certain uncle and a number of it's cronies/colleagues, it does appear as though NZ has started turning away from having the NZDF become a group of Blue Helmets, which it appears that prior gov'ts wanted because they felt it brought prestige to NZ.
If memory serves (and it might not...
) at one point, around the mid-00's nearly 10% of uniformed NZDF personnel were deployed away from NZ, at one of ~22 different UN deployments with Kiwi contingents. Having that sizable a percentage of one's defence personnel scattered so far apart from NZ and each other turned out to make sustaining personnel and needed skills quite difficult, and IMO at least that is more important than enabling pollies to claim bragging rights about being, "a good citizen of the international community."
What balance of risks are you talking about. Usually risk is talked about as either a percentage or a probability which is not expressed as a percentage.Thinking about it, the balance of risks is actually somewhat weighed towards the NZDF (or maybe it will be called the AoDF in the very near future?) becoming like the Irish Defence Force in terms of its force structure in the near future, with Australia and the US basically assuming the task of external defence, especially when you take into consideration domestic politics? The possibility of the air strike wing with jet fighters being restored basically 1 out of 1000000000000 for the foreseeable future.
The reason I used the SIPRI figures, is because they have standardized figures for all countries, unlike when you have to rely on the individual figures provided by different countries' governments, which can be prone to accounting magic, like the figures provided by China, or how France for the longest time included the amount spent on the Gendarmerie in its defence spending statistics. For example, there the question as to whether the amount spent on military pensions should be included in defence spending figures, since it is not really a civilian expense either, and for the US, how much it really spends on its nuclear deterrence is not that clear either.
The Hidden Costs of Our Nuclear Arsenal: Overview of Project Findings
This project was completed in August 1998 and resulted in the book Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940 edited by Stephen I. Schwartz. These project pages are…
Your post is confusing because it wanders around worse than a drunken sailor on a drunk run ashore. For example what the hell does the linked article have to do with NZ? We don't have nuclear weapons, they're illegal in this country, and we don't have a defence treaty with a nuclear power.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would have to disagree, as the NZDF has retained capabilities which AFAIK the Irish Defence Forces does not have and for some capabilities perhaps never had. Further, the geographic, economic and international relations position of Ireland is quite different from NZ, and that is before one gets into how the strategic outlook for the Asian-Pacific region has been changing.
In the past, especially after the end of the Cold War, it does seem as though some members of NZ's leadership wished to adopt a policy of disarmament and non-alignment at the same time citing economic factors and a "benign strategic environment."
Here we are, about 30 years after the end of the Cold War, and the strategic environment is no longer anywhere as benign as it had been claimed. I personally would tend to dispute that it was ever really all that benign and tend to chalk up previous assertions of it having been benign as being part of an ideologically-based sales pitch that sought to alter the perception of ordinary Kiwis in order to achieve a desired outcome on gov't spending, among other things. Now it seems that a Cold War 2.0 is either starting up, or possibly has been already going for several years. This change in strategic situation is quite likely to require NZ not only retain existing capabilities, but also either expand upon them (in terms of degree/scope) or possibly even regain/rebuild old capabilities that were dropped. The alternative to doing at least some of this would likely be NZ and Kiwis being unable to influence events and outcomes which would impact their lives.
Lets get one thing straight. New Zealand has never operated submarines and for the foreseeable future has no interest in them at all. So how about start dealing in reality instead of fantasy.
Secondly, if you actually bothered to look at the 2019 Defence Capability Plan, you will see capabilities funded that disprove your argument.
Your continual harping on about this makes me wonder about your motives. Are you just being plain stubborn, or do you have other motivations. Either way people have taken time to explain to you the errors in your reasoning and explain why they are errors. It's all about learning and that is for everyone on here. We all learn. But it's what we do with the information that we are presented with that makes the difference, defines us on here. So if I am to define you what should that definition be?
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Wait... what?
While it has been slow the NZDF have gained new capabilities. We can now project a small force var the MRV (while it is not perfect ) we never use to be able to do that and they want to expand on that according to the DCP-2019 with a proper LPD.
The MoD did look at submarines once, and that was that the looked at the idea and weighed up options and said "no" andas
ngatimozart said foreseeable future has no interest in them at all.
Even if we decided today that Fighter Jets will be back, we have lost all that knowledge and it would take at least a decade to relearn all that, get the pilots trained and up to scratch...But I can see that happening in my lifetime unless shit really hits the fan so there is no point harping on about it.
The NZDF have retained much more of it's capabilities than the Irish Defence Force. We still have Anti-Sub capabilities from the air and ships, navy has retained its limited anti air and anti ship capabilities, army still has limited Anti Tank with Javelin can still move cargo by air fixed and rotary wing and now by sea (which will grow with the ESV). Gaining a 3rd OPV dedicated for the Southern Ocean. Gain in capabilities with HMNZS Aotearoa and Manawanui. Will gain capabilities with the P-8A's capabilities extra capabilities with the ESV when it comes on line. The C-130J-30 not much of a gain but still again. Replacing the dumbest thing we ever bought the armoured pinzgauer with the Bushmaster.
My point is it's not all about things that go bang... Yes in some area's I agree we have lost capabilities down to two Frigates, no ACF etc but we have had to make some hard decisions if we want to keep up with the times. However times are slowly changing as the Government briefings say threats to New Zealand grow with a 'receding' world order I just hope defence spending changes with it.
Last edited:
This is the MFAT (Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade) take on the situation.
New Zealand’s security environment is deteriorating. State sovereignty and agreed norms of state behaviour are being undermined. Growing strategic competition is having a destabilising effect, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. Antarctica is not immune.Trans-border threats directly affecting New Zealand’s security include malicious cyber activities, foreign interference, malign use of emerging technology (including in outer space), transnational crime, irregular migration and terrorism. These threats stem from global challenges with increasing domestic manifestations; addressing them will require increasingly deep cooperation between external-facing and internal-facing New Zealand government agencies. Likewise, New Zealand will need to broaden and deepen security cooperation with key partners and continue defending the rules-based order through contributions to global peace, security and disarmament initiatives.
Security threats will rise further and more quickly in the COVID-19 environment as a result of increased instability, greater state weakness and more failed states; greater international refugee flows; reduced capacity in countries to address trans-border security threats; and more space for malign actors to operate given distracted governments. Further demand for security and humanitarian contributions from New Zealand can be expected. Source: Briefing to Incoming Minister of Foreign Affairs P.37 (P.41 in pdf)
Last edited:
Exactly and they are thinking about it as outlined in the heavily redacted appendix to the Incoming Minister memorandum of Defence.
Option B
Increasing Activity and Capability: This package would focus on
increasing NZDF’s activity levels and preparing for the introduction of new
capabilities. New and returning capabilities should be able to be utilised as
planned.
One other thing on a slightly different matter that relates to National and indeed Global Security and the role, investment and membership of this elite fraternity, which puts New Zealand in a completely different league to Ireland and in fact many countries much larger with well equiped defence forces, and is why it is highly unlikely it will end up like a peripheral European coastal state in influence, but always have skin in the game and a voice at the table. When politicians talk in code about New Zealand "punching above its weight" on the world stage this is in fact what they are actually talking about and not a speech to the UN. Which one recent PM told an audience that is was the most important and valuable external relationship the country had, and more important to us than the UN in any case.
My opinion is that the break down of the norms of world order have been gradually happening for some time, due to climate change and population growth and that the pace of this breakdown has been increasing. However it seems that Coved 19 may have significantly increased this breakdown and as China basically seems to have this under control they may view this as an opportunity to take a more aggressive approach to further both their territorial claims and further their world asperations.
It is all very well to have reports that tell the Politicians that something like this is happening, It is something else to get them to act on it and to get this action I think that far more of this information needs to be publicized on a constant basis so that it becomes politically acceptable to act on this info or else we will again have a situation of too little too late again. This in the long run usually ends up costing to many of our young men and women their lives or long term health.
It is all very well to have reports that tell the Politicians that something like this is happening, It is something else to get them to act on it and to get this action I think that far more of this information needs to be publicized on a constant basis so that it becomes politically acceptable to act on this info or else we will again have a situation of too little too late again. This in the long run usually ends up costing to many of our young men and women their lives or long term health.
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
Does anyone have sight on potential additional new capabilities in Cyberspace? Pre any physical conflict I would expect that things would heat up in cyberspace, just look at what happened to our financial institutions last year. Would this capability sit within the GCSB, not our traditional defence forces as they would be engaging a lot with our strategic infrastructure providers and businesses? Australia has stated that it will invest heavily in this area.
I agree with the majority of the forum. I do not see a traditional ACF returning, but do see the potential for drones. An example of this with be a P8 flying with Loyal Wingman but this is a few years away but could be in place by 2030.
I agree with the majority of the forum. I do not see a traditional ACF returning, but do see the potential for drones. An example of this with be a P8 flying with Loyal Wingman but this is a few years away but could be in place by 2030.
t68
Well-Known Member
@MrConservative
Returning capabilities that is pretty broad statement considering it lost the ACF and 2x frigates under the peace dividend from the Cold War
From my point of view it’s most important to revisit frigate numbers and overall P8 like for like should have been the minimum and also enlargement of the combined arms land forces with hardened protected vehicles which may have to include a return to a MBT
Like it or leave it if the NZGov is serious about the security environment don’t think they have an option not to return to a small ACF either fast jet or rotary, it’s not about 1st day against China but overwatch of NZ land forces and coalition forces
If NZ does get a LHD in the future combined with the RAN’s LHD I think it’s inevitable that the RAAF will get F35B and either a 3rd LHD or small sea control carrier, to protect an Anzac task force
Returning capabilities that is pretty broad statement considering it lost the ACF and 2x frigates under the peace dividend from the Cold War
From my point of view it’s most important to revisit frigate numbers and overall P8 like for like should have been the minimum and also enlargement of the combined arms land forces with hardened protected vehicles which may have to include a return to a MBT
Like it or leave it if the NZGov is serious about the security environment don’t think they have an option not to return to a small ACF either fast jet or rotary, it’s not about 1st day against China but overwatch of NZ land forces and coalition forces
If NZ does get a LHD in the future combined with the RAN’s LHD I think it’s inevitable that the RAAF will get F35B and either a 3rd LHD or small sea control carrier, to protect an Anzac task force
Last edited by a moderator:
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
I wonder if an option for NZ to buy some of the Australian Superhornets as an initial step? That would provide a reasonable modern capability that is used by other forces who we might operate with?
Definitely increase the frigate numbers to 3,preferably 4. I to would also like to see the P-8A numbers increase to 5, preferably 6. However in reality I am not hopeful of any increase of the P-8A fleet. The NZG doesn't see a reason for that at the moment, but when it does it will be to late.
I actually think that a fast jet ACF will be stood up again. It's just a matter of when and in what form. However it has to be understood that it will take 10 years for it to be fully capable. I would see it more as a maritime strike force rather than a land overwatch. We're in a maritime environment and that's what we should be focusing upon. When we do have to face the dragon it will be in an environment similar to the WW2 Pacific Theatre of Operations.
I do think that there is a place in the NZDF for an ARH capability. Something that is marinised so capable of operating in a maritime environment. Such a capability is not in NZDF CONOPS at the moment, but I think should be seriously looked at again because of the JATF that has been stood up.
You know that RAN carrier & F35B is a forbidden topic. You have been given a holiday for being naughty before.
The 2019 DCP forecasts 2 Enhanced Sealift Vessels and whilst it gives the LPD as an example, nothing is set in stone. My own preference would be for LHDs, but we shall have to wait and see. They offer more flight deck and hangar space than an LPD does.
The RAAF aren't divesting themselves of any Shornets, it's the Classic Hornets that they are retiring. The F-18F would be a candidate but it depends upon the role that we require them to undertake. My own view is that the primary role should be maritime strike, so that requires a twin seater because you need someone to operate sensors, weapons, and other non flying tasks, leaving the pilot to fly and fight the aircraft. A co-prime role could be TACREC (Tactical Reconnaissance) which Is a semi specialised role.
Any cyberspace capabilities that are or are not in the frame will be closely guarded. The GSCB are very security conscious for obvious reasons and what they do or don't do is kept very quiet.
Last edited:
Yep I agree, but you would have to work very hard and cut some corners to achieve a fully viable AFC in 20 years. I watched the Singapore air force as it grew and got it's AFC going and while they got a strike force in place in about a ten year time frame with external instructors, it was up to double that time until they became the highly trained and effective force they are today.
Well they were building a complete air force and we don't have 20 years. We can contract out LIFT to our FVEY partners until we have built up a good cadre of experienced aircrew and instructors and then bring it back home. But we are going to have to spend good money on acquiring the appropriate platform for the job and the F-35 isn't it. What we really require is a twin seater that has long legs, is quick, and can carry a goodly supply of under wing stores. It is also something that can back the RAAF F-35 up as well by being a weapons truck.