NZDF General discussion thread

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Manus Island has been of interest to Aus and the US for some time, and there was a project to upgrade facilities there for our use although I’m not sure where that is at. A more worrying possibility might be an upgrade to Daru (which it badly needs btw) so as to “properly support the fishing fleet”, enabling it to be used. Possibly without PNG approval; in a conflict situation China would probably regard that as irrelevant. Imagine if Japan had had an airhead at Daru in 1942....
Daru to is a possibility and that would be an absolute nightmare for both Australia and Indonesia. Jeez if Japan had managed to build a Rabaul or even a Weewak type of base at at Daru, it would have made life at Darwin extremely difficult. They would have had control of the Arafura Sea and basically cut Darwin off from air, sea, and probably land support. I know that RAAF B-24 bombers operated out of the Pilbara against Japanese targets in modern day Indonesia, so they could easily reach Daru from the NT outside of Japanese aircraft strike range.

The RNZAF, RAAF, USN and USAAF were still bombing and strafing Rabaul right up to wars end. Think there were 100,000 Japanese bottled up there.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ngatimozart. I always found Falcon View or JMPS a good GIS for this type of thing. I've long since lost access but your friendly local blue suiters at 3/5/40/230SQN may be able to help.
Thanks I have a copy of ArcGIS but my licence is no longer valid :( It expired when finally left uni. I have another one that I use, MapWindow, which is quite good. I'll just have to remember how to use it because I don't use it very often now.

As far as data goes its just a matter of finding the geodata that is in SHP (shape file) format. I just haven't had the reason to acquire it before and it will be freely available somewhere. The H-6K weapons data I can find reasonably easily.

The only reason that I want to run it through a GIS is that the map quality will be better and look better.
 

OldTex

Active Member
Updated map to include the Lombrum - Momote. It's shows that the CR basically moves east encompassing the top north east part or Australia, approximately half of Indonesia, the lower half of the Philippines, and includes Guam. It excludes NZ Realm territories, but includes New Caledonia which will concern Paris.

View attachment 48220

If I can find some really good data, I may try and run this through a GIS and tease it out a bit more because this map is a bit rough.
This graphic is a useful and important element for any discussion (or even appreciation) of potential threats facing NZ, Australia and the US as well as some ASEAN countries. One facet that it shows is that the use of Lombrum-Momote and Kanton island to launch hostile aircraft at Australia, NZ and the US is not without significant logistic impediments. The supply routes, either by air or sea, are subject to being interdicted so any first strike(s) would have to massive in order eliminate potential counter-strike forces. Another facet is that the threat can be neutralised or minimised through the use of ongoing diplomatic engagement by Australia, NZ and the US with PNG and Kiribati. Any diplomatic effort must focus on meeting the needs and asperations of the citizens of these countries and enriching their lives. This diplomatic effort would also have to present both countries with the realisation that allowing their territory to be used for hostile actions against Australia, NZ and the US will result in retaliation against the attacking forces. This will result in both countries suffering colateral deaths and destruction of property.
 
Last edited:

Gooey

Member

I have not been following the recent NZ Gov budget but this article may be the start of the Dark Arts preparation for stagnation in the Defence vote. How that is possible to spin in this age of Strategic Competition and following decades of record-low spending will be interesting to observe. For me, this is the first formal announcement of substance from Minister Henare. I assess that his interest and ability in the Defence portfolio is not going to be 1st XV material, sadly:

Quote: Henare said he was keen to “see how we might grow our people capacity and our infrastructure here at home”, and “I know a lot of the media make a point about measuring them [the Defence Force] by ships and guns, actually, you know, we have a large housing stock, we have large infrastructure in the Defence Force here in Aotearoa, as well as people, and I'd like to see us focus there,” he said.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
That's interesting because our esteemed Minister of Defence earlier said that they were going to have public input into the next DWP or whatever the next Defence document will be. However I am going to reserve judgement because this is the NZ media and WRT defence they have a track record of being about half a parsec wide of the mark. Having said that, it being the current government it wouldn't surprise me either.
 

Hone C

Active Member
...this is the NZ media and WRT defence they have a track record of being about half a parsec wide of the mark.
Unfortunately very true.

I was especially surprised that the article in question mentioned the planned increase in the army's size to 6000 infantrymen and women. I know Ron Mark had done a great job with defence funding but wasn't aware Jacinda had signed off on raising another 8 battalions.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Quote: Henare said he was keen to “see how we might grow our people capacity and our infrastructure here at home”, and “I know a lot of the media make a point about measuring them [the Defence Force] by ships and guns, actually, you know, we have a large housing stock, we have large infrastructure in the Defence Force here in Aotearoa, as well as people, and I'd like to see us focus there,” he said.
So "Houses, not guns"

Shades of "Butter, not bombs". Somehow it feels to me like the NZ polity and a significant percentage of the public are still living in the 70's.

Which is nice, if it just applies to a more laid back lifestyle and you can guarantee no outside influences will change things

oldsig
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
So "Houses, not guns"

Shades of "Butter, not bombs". Somehow it feels to me like the NZ polity and a significant percentage of the public are still living in the 70's.

Which is nice, if it just applies to a more laid back lifestyle and you can guarantee no outside influences will change things

oldsig
Yeah well lets wait to see what's happening. TBH I don't even know if this government knows what it's doing itself, given their track record. They'd probably order Sopwith Camels from TVAL in Masterton thinking that they were the latest strike aircraft. It's not their politics that's the real problem at the moment, but their lack of organisational, managerial and political skills.
 

htbrst

Active Member
A bit of a nothing article about the current status of UAVs' in the NZDF. It doesn't include much detail aside from they know about "issues" with DJI and they plan on buying more drones in the future.

The most interesting titbit is that the most advanced drone operated by NZDF is an AeroVironment Puma which I don't think been known before.

Though most of its drones are from DJI, Defence also has a far more expensive Flir Skyranger and the army operates a single top-end AeroVironment Puma drone.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member

I have not been following the recent NZ Gov budget but this article may be the start of the Dark Arts preparation for stagnation in the Defence vote. How that is possible to spin in this age of Strategic Competition and following decades of record-low spending will be interesting to observe. For me, this is the first formal announcement of substance from Minister Henare. I assess that his interest and ability in the Defence portfolio is not going to be 1st XV material, sadly:

Quote: Henare said he was keen to “see how we might grow our people capacity and our infrastructure here at home”, and “I know a lot of the media make a point about measuring them [the Defence Force] by ships and guns, actually, you know, we have a large housing stock, we have large infrastructure in the Defence Force here in Aotearoa, as well as people, and I'd like to see us focus there,” he said.

Hmm, interesting...just read this after being away for a few days! Yes on first glance...or at least the way it is framed, this sounds concerning. Also of course he's a junior minister & will be nowhere near a position to drive Defence policy but merely ride along with what senior MPs tell him is the policy so he can just parrot that.

But then the flip side... recently the Govt will most likely have been given a clear indication from Oz & possibly the US as to their expectations with the 'China syndrome' causing ripples in the region... so for him to then be quoted as saying '“With a new Government, and the impact of Covid-19 worsening negative trends in our security environment, [redacted] it is timely to look again at our policy settings...” he surely can't be signaling a pull back from the region and investing in housing stock! Besides any further reduction in Defence capability would render much of the housing estate as redundant!

The above quote suggests to me the Govt does actually realise that the security situation is worsening and if they use that to frame policy going forward, as they suggest, it must surely frame a move in the 'right' direction!?! Maybe I'm just incredibly naïve but perhaps the reason the budget only included a nominal $5M was that they are framing a move to increased spending in future, which they wouldn't have wanted to make a point of discussion in amongst a budget that was heavily 'socially' focused... doing that would have sent a very contradictory message.

Fingers crossed! o_O
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Hmm, interesting...just read this after being away for a few days! Yes on first glance...or at least the way it is framed, this sounds concerning. Also of course he's a junior minister & will be nowhere near a position to drive Defence policy but merely ride along with what senior MPs tell him is the policy so he can just parrot that.

But then the flip side... recently the Govt will most likely have been given a clear indication from Oz & possibly the US as to their expectations with the 'China syndrome' causing ripples in the region... so for him to then be quoted as saying '“With a new Government, and the impact of Covid-19 worsening negative trends in our security environment, [redacted] it is timely to look again at our policy settings...” he surely can't be signaling a pull back from the region and investing in housing stock! Besides any further reduction in Defence capability would render much of the housing estate as redundant!

The above quote suggests to me the Govt does actually realise that the security situation is worsening and if they use that to frame policy going forward, as they suggest, it must surely frame a move in the 'right' direction!?! Maybe I'm just incredibly naïve but perhaps the reason the budget only included a nominal $5M was that they are framing a move to increased spending in future, which they wouldn't have wanted to make a point of discussion in amongst a budget that was heavily 'socially' focused... doing that would have sent a very contradictory message.

Fingers crossed! o_O
The most amazing thing in that article is, the plan to bolster the Army to bring the total number of “Infantry” Men and Women to 6000!!! by 2035 so either the NZ Army is growing by about 20,000 or someone thinks everyone in the NZ Army is in the Infantry:rolleyes:
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
The most amazing thing in that article is, the plan to bolster the Army to bring the total number of “Infantry” Men and Women to 6000!!! by 2035 so either the NZ Army is growing by about 20,000 or someone thinks everyone in the NZ Army is in the Infantry:rolleyes:
Of course 'the plan' for Army they refer to is the 2019 DCP which states "...this will include increasing the size of the New Zealand Army to 6000 personnel by 2035". So yes crap reporting once again... that gives one hope they have the 'slant' of this article wrong too and that it won't all be about Defence housing!
 

Arclighy

Member
The article also mentions an up coming defence assessment. I can't imagine that assessment will be anything but pointing to a "worsening" security environment, as @Gibbo points out. We all know this to be true, so it would be 'cloud cuckoo land' stuff for NZ to respond by improving the defence estate, but not to seriously look to increased defence capability. Maybe I'm being optimistic, and I'm not in NZ, so l don't have a real feel for how the worsening security environment is being portrayed and discussed in country, but l hope there is more to this than is portrayed in the 'Stuff' article.
 
I think there will be a lot of discussions about the worsening environment happening if not now then soon. They just need to look at what is happening to Australia and the economic risk of too many eggs in one basket. I think that cyber and space will get a lot more focus considering our vulnerability, just in this year we have a DHB effectively closed, stock exchange and our banks impacted various organised entities be they state actors or criminals the weakness and impact is the same. The direction of travel seems to be only one way, to increasing risk which requires an effective strategy to mitigate.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Going back to the infrastructure point, IIRC there was $1.7 billion allocated from the $20 billion for infrastructure. Whether it's enough is another story, but that would be par for the course.
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
The problem with our pollies is that they won't debate defence, so they never get to understand it in any meaningful way and hide behind the illusion that if there is no current direct threat to NZ they don't have to do anything. Most of them are blissfully unaware that to achieve anything meaningful in restoring lost capabilities of our armed forces will take decades.
 

Depot Dog

Member

Today reading the newspapers I found this article. The foreign minister giving a heads up that exporters should think about diversifying their goods to other markets. Warning that relations with China could cool. It will be interesting to see where this is going too.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

Today reading the newspapers I found this article. The foreign minister giving a heads up that exporters should think about diversifying their goods to other markets. Warning that relations with China could cool. It will be interesting to see where this is going too.
Yes I read that earlier and she makes a very good and logical point. It's something that our exporters should be actively working on anyway.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Yes I read that earlier and she makes a very good and logical point. It's something that our exporters should be actively working on anyway.

Yep I agree. the only exception I have with the article is its not actually a trade war if only one side is actually trying to undermine the other, its more a matter of trade coercion because of differing view points.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Yes I read that earlier and she makes a very good and logical point. It's something that our exporters should be actively working on anyway.
They should, but an interesting question is whether they will.

Over the last several months I've read a number of articles talking about how businesses in some countries are ramping up ties with China (despite the fact they're not super-pro Beijing).

It's quite possible NZ companies will be smarter than that, but it's always illuminating how short-termist some people can be, always looking for the easy money rather than making hard choices.
 
Top