NZDF General discussion thread

kiwi in exile

Active Member
Nania Mahuta interview. "building a broad consensus... upholding human rights" but not speaking up with our allies about human rights abuses. More diplomatic waffle about genocide. An even more here and here, Biden has just labelled the Armenian Genocide a genocide.
The gap between what the NZG touts as its values and what it actually is prepared to say publically is huge.

Also 9 min interview with Peeni Henare. Again nothing really groundbreaking. When asked 'why do we need to be combat ready?" he quickly made his way to HADR in the Pacific.

Paul Buchanan has a more nuanced view on the Taniwha and Dragon speech. His interpretation is a little more reassuring, coming from someone who has worked inside the system, compared to the 'end of five eyes' commentry in the press. I have seen it suggested (Peter Jennings ASPI) that it may suit Australia (and therefore the other 3 eyes) to replace NZ in five eyes with Japan. I can appreciate this.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
So how on earth are these numpties going to be able to diversify away from China in terms of trade to gain to gain improved trade access to friendly markets and allies, when they are deliberately shrinking into being ”an Independent Pacific Island State” (the swing away from being the Global trade outlook of the previous government), and don’t fully get that those countries are seeking the triangularisation of trade with defence with diplomacy within their remit of developing and expanding relationship? It is the fortress little New Zealand policy / mentality – which is essentially a low ambition formulation of the Clark era – a Clark 2.0.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
So how on earth are these numpties going to be able to diversify away from China in terms of trade to gain to gain improved trade access to friendly markets and allies, when they are deliberately shrinking into being ”an Independent Pacific Island State” (the swing away from being the Global trade outlook of the previous government), and don’t fully get that those countries are seeking the triangularisation of trade with defence with diplomacy within their remit of developing and expanding relationship? It is the fortress little New Zealand policy / mentality – which is essentially a low ambition formulation of the Clark era – a Clark 2.0.
Well what do you expect? Clark is the PM's mentor and the senior members of the caucus are hangovers from the Clark government. TBH they weren't prepared to be government in 2017 and that's been shown, now they've doubled down on it. It's not so much the politics, but the overall incompetence that exists throughout the political and party side of the NZLP.

We have a big problem in that both of our major political parties are blind to defence challenges and the geostrategic situational challenges in the region. Labour stick their heads in the sand and try to wish it away, whilst National talk the big talk whilst cutting defence funding and then being to scared and / stingy to spend the required money. We lost out on C-17 aircraft because the then PM wasn't willing to expend some political capital in what would've been an uncontroversial acquisition. He thought it might damage his image. Jeez.

Then there is the problem of how much CCP money and influence is being funnelled to both major parties through the United Front. That's a concern in itself.
 
Does anyone know why we did not provide any support to Indonesia to search for their lost submarine? I was surprised that many of our close friends were helping but we did not. I have emailed the Minister and asked him the same question.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Does anyone know why we did not provide any support to Indonesia to search for their lost submarine? I was surprised that many of our close friends were helping but we did not. I have emailed the Minister and asked him the same question.
The first two thoughts which immediately came to mind as possible answers is that the NZDF might not have had the appropriate assets available for such a search and rescue/recovery operation, or possibly that the NZDF did have suitable kit, but it would not have been able to get on station in time to be of much use. Keep in mind that the oxygen was expected to run out early Saturday IIRC, assuming the hull had not been compromised as it now appears to have been.
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
The first two thoughts which immediately came to mind as possible answers is that the NZDF might not have had the appropriate assets available for such a search and rescue/recovery operation, or possibly that the NZDF did have suitable kit, but it would not have been able to get on station in time to be of much use. Keep in mind that the oxygen was expected to run out early Saturday IIRC, assuming the hull had not been compromised as it now appears to have been.
I would guess that even if we had the equipment we are probably short of pers to send.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The first two thoughts which immediately came to mind as possible answers is that the NZDF might not have had the appropriate assets available for such a search and rescue/recovery operation, or possibly that the NZDF did have suitable kit, but it would not have been able to get on station in time to be of much use. Keep in mind that the oxygen was expected to run out early Saturday IIRC, assuming the hull had not been compromised as it now appears to have been.
Australia only ended up deploying assets because they were reasonably close by at the time, if either of your Frigates or your AOR had been close by then maybe they may have been deployed. But this was always going to be a time critical operation and in the end the only assets that ended up being of use were those that could count there response time in hours.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Does anyone know why we did not provide any support to Indonesia to search for their lost submarine? I was surprised that many of our close friends were helping but we did not. I have emailed the Minister and asked him the same question.
To add to what others have said, we also would have to be invited by the Indonesians as well.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Then there is the problem of how much CCP money and influence is being funnelled to both major parties through the United Front. That's a concern in itself.
Continue down this path, little or no trade diversification and CCP influencing parties and it will end up, as one wag wrote, in reply to Paul Jennings ASPI piece;
“New Xiland” Mr John Cowell, Redlands Bay, Qld.
 

Gooey

Member
“New Xiland” Mr John Cowell, Redlands Bay, Qld.
“Like it Centurion!”

Excuse my one liners of doom, but why has Kiwi media singularly failed to ask Minister Mahuta et al about simple to research topics like
CCP United Front United Front (China) - Wikipedia, or
UC Prof Brady’s Magic Weapons Anne-Marie Brady?

Or am I being too harsh on the darlings in our Fourth Estate?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
“Like it Centurion!”

Excuse my one liners of doom, but why has Kiwi media singularly failed to ask Minister Mahuta et al about simple to research topics like
CCP United Front United Front (China) - Wikipedia, or
UC Prof Brady’s Magic Weapons Anne-Marie Brady?

Or am I being too harsh on the darlings in our Fourth Estate?
The Kiwi media do some actual research? They can't even get the basics right and that includes their language skills. They're about as useful as tits on a bull.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The Kiwi media do some actual research? They can't even get the basics right and that includes their language skills. They're about as useful as tits on a bull.
Not to rag on any specific rags... but I do recall reading a Kiwi paper following the major quake in Christchurch, and the caption for the photo of a NZLAV with troop detachment securing an intersection called it a tank. This was not in a small/local NZ paper BTW, it might have been the Herald, but it gives an idea.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Not to rag on any specific rags... but I do recall reading a Kiwi paper following the major quake in Christchurch, and the caption for the photo of a NZLAV with troop detachment securing an intersection called it a tank. This was not in a small/local NZ paper BTW, it might have been the Herald, but it gives an idea.
Most of them called the NZLAVs tanks and occasionally the frigates have been called battleships.
 

CJohn

Active Member
Just my thoughts, I think It is time for the Country to embrace high technology, times are changing, technology is moving exponentially, AI is the future trend, and we should keep pace and follow our allies.

NZ Defense needs to focus on a credible future Frigate replacement, high tech and in numbers.

Keeping eyes on our EEZ is going to be the job of long range medium altitude drones, there is no chose in the matter, we will move into this area. And we should invest accordingly.

Extra large UUV's could play a major roll in NZ continental awareness of the threats that will appear and respond accordingly. This should be studied further. Oceanography around NZ is quite unique, and needs further study with defense applications in mind.

I think our ability to punch satellites into low orbit is an advantage and we should use it, It is time for major investment in these emerging technologies. We are no longer isolated in the world picture and open sea lanes mean everything for an Island Nation.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Just my thoughts, I think It is time for the Country to embrace high technology, times are changing, technology is moving exponentially, AI is the future trend, and we should keep pace and follow our allies.

NZ Defense needs to focus on a credible future Frigate replacement, high tech and in numbers.

Keeping eyes on our EEZ is going to be the job of long range medium altitude drones, there is no chose in the matter, we will move into this area. And we should invest accordingly.

Extra large UUV's could play a major roll in NZ continental awareness of the threats that will appear and respond accordingly. This should be studied further. Oceanography around NZ is quite unique, and needs further study with defense applications in mind.

I think our ability to punch satellites into low orbit is an advantage and we should use it, It is time for major investment in these emerging technologies. We are no longer isolated in the world picture and open sea lanes mean everything for an Island Nation.
From memory the ESA have a tracking facility in Southland. A space junk tracking facility was being built in Central Otago. Christchurch is increasingly becoming a high tech hub with some work being done in partnership with the University of Canterbury. Our space tech industry is increasing on the back of Rocket Lab.

From the NZ POV has anyone ever looked at conversion of the Rocket Lab launch vehicle to a ballistic missile? Maybe a joint research program with Australia?

I would argue that bathymetry surrounding NZ is not unique. It is typical continental - oceanic floor bathymetry that is found elsewhere. I would argue that the bathymetry off the coast of Japan is unique, purely because of the geological processes that occur there.

I don't see a requirement for long range UUV in a surveillance role at the moment. Considering the size of our AOMI they would be impractical. However such vessels have other uses such as close surveillance etc., and maybe it's an area that we can look at research wise.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Active Member
Well what do you expect? Clark is the PM's mentor and the senior members of the caucus are hangovers from the Clark government. TBH they weren't prepared to be government in 2017 and that's been shown, now they've doubled down on it. It's not so much the politics, but the overall incompetence that exists throughout the political and party side of the NZLP.

We have a big problem in that both of our major political parties are blind to defence challenges and the geostrategic situational challenges in the region. Labour stick their heads in the sand and try to wish it away, whilst National talk the big talk whilst cutting defence funding and then being to scared and / stingy to spend the required money. We lost out on C-17 aircraft because the then PM wasn't willing to expend some political capital in what would've been an uncontroversial acquisition. He thought it might damage his image. Jeez.

Then there is the problem of how much CCP money and influence is being funnelled to both major parties through the United Front. That's a concern in itself.
Recently I've been wondering what value New Zealand brings to Five Eyes if it's going to act as a roadblock to doing anything about China. It's an organisation that was set up to deal with the Cold War, which is now over. Bog-standard terrorism alone isn't a reason to keep Auckland in if it's simultaneously going to stop dealing with important geopolitical issues.

Perhaps the solution is to do what the eurozone did to the UK, which was to have a general EU meeting and then later in the evening boot the UK representative out to have a eurozone-only session. NZ could avoid the shame of being kicked out for being in Beijing's pocket, and the rest of us could actually do something useful.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Recently I've been wondering what value New Zealand brings to Five Eyes if it's going to act as a roadblock to doing anything about China. It's an organisation that was set up to deal with the Cold War, which is now over. Bog-standard terrorism alone isn't a reason to keep Auckland in if it's simultaneously going to stop dealing with important geopolitical issues.

Perhaps the solution is to do what the eurozone did to the UK, which was to have a general EU meeting and then later in the evening boot the UK representative out to have a eurozone-only session. NZ could avoid the shame of being kicked out for being in Beijing's pocket, and the rest of us could actually do something useful.
I don’t know, considering the $hit condition of the UK and Canada, both economically and politically, a US OZ 2 eye solution might be best.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Recently I've been wondering what value New Zealand brings to Five Eyes if it's going to act as a roadblock to doing anything about China.
There is more to this space than simply the activities of the PRC. What in particular is the NZIC doing to roadblock? Did the NZ government ban Huawei before at least 2 other members? To be fair it has said it wants to strictly keep the club to its intelligence remit and not expand it into a foreign policy grouping (without any reciprocal triangularization on the table to NZ from at least the 3 northern hemisphere partners).

It's an organisation that was set up to deal with the Cold War, which is now over.
And we now have 2.0

Bog-standard terrorism alone isn't a reason to keep Auckland in if it's simultaneously going to stop dealing with important geopolitical issues.
But what of all the other projects of interest including the deep examination, reach and institutional knowledge into the Pacific?
 

Musashi_kenshin

Active Member
To be fair it has said it wants to strictly keep the club to its intelligence remit and not expand it into a foreign policy grouping (without any reciprocal triangularization on the table to NZ from at least the 3 northern hemisphere partners).

I think New Zealand is pretending there's a problem with Five Eyes' future that doesn't actually exist. There has been some poking to have a unified line on China, but that's a far step from a foreign policy grouping which would suggest a common approach on all issues.

If it was just what Mahuta said I don't think it would matter. But this isn't the first time something like this has happened. It wasn't that long ago that another NZ minister interjected into the China-Australia trade dispute and suggested Canberra needed to bend over for Beijing to smooth things over.

Even if NZ doesn't want to cause problems for Five Eyes, it gives Beijing the impression that it can manipulate Auckland to disrupt the organisation. There are much better ways at expressing concerns than handing propaganda coups to China by making statements in public.

And we now have 2.0
Which is pretty much all about China, albeit with Russia thrown in as a sidekick. If Five Eyes isn't going to stand up to China, what is it going to do? Accumulate information and then sit on it because Kiwis might lose their jobs?

I don’t know, considering the $hit condition of the UK and Canada, both economically and politically, a US OZ 2 eye solution might be best.
John, I know you've got some sort of chip on your shoulder, but can you please stop posting misinformation every time even the smallest opportunity comes up? You know full well that if Washington had to choose between a security partnership between Australia and the UK, it would choose the UK every time.
 
Top