Our isolation no longer protects us at all. That idea was disproven in 1942. Only a fool would believe that our isolation is a protection. Certainly didn't stop the COVID-19 getting in and causing havoc.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Might as well disband the whole NZDF and just absorb it into police,customs and coast guard?
Just let Australia do the defence of NZ as contractors. Pay us NZ!
That is why we have chosen to be interdependent with like minded liberal democracies around the world that celebrate personal freedom and meritocratic egalitarianism. As the strategic situation we do need to re-calibrate our defence capabilities to meet emerging threats. If that means going back to a four surface combatant capability - then that is what we may need to do.
But we did not AussieRob.
I believe at certain times we have run ourselves better than Australia, sometime they have run themselves better than us.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
So by this line of thought you have already capitulated and will not do anything to help yourself. Allies with treaty obligations to help defend NZ would then be within their rights to declare the respective treaty rendered null and void.
Isolation is only a defence if you can produce every single item needed for the existence of a functioning society. Otherwise you have provided your opponent with the means to force your submission without undue expenditure of their resources.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
With that view, then why have a defence force at all then? Might as well just arm the Police force and be done with it. We don't need a Navy either... famous last words.
The Defence force is is not just about defending NZ from a direct attack or invasion it never has been. We have always known that we could never do that on our own if another country had the might and capability to come here directly.
However the next conflict is not going to be an all out war like WWII. It will be a variety of skirmish's over resources most likely contained an certain area's that will be in our backyard. NZ and our domain is rich with fresh clean water, rich with and food including fish (NZ also produces enough food to feed 40 million people) the southern basin is most likely the next oil hot spot. NZ is rich with many other minerals and recourses that could also be exploited. The Antarctic treaty expires in 2048 another area that certain countries want to exploit.
Adding to this and more importantly as others have mentioned about SLOC and shipping lanes that need defending if we can not help defend those lanes then we should not be allowed to use them. New Zealand is a island nation surround by the big blue we use and depend on those the sea lanes to both import and export and we have to be able to at least help protect those.
The thing is the Chinese are a threat. A threat to our resources and they need protecting. Just look at what China have been doing with the fishing fleets and strip fishing areas even in the Pacific over the years and to neighboring countries. The SCS and the 9 dash line with their building arming various bases. This is in Australia's back yard and we do have a defence agreement with Australia and is one a few reasons New Zealand can go to war with out cabinet parliament approval is if Australia is attacked.
While China doesn't have the capability at the moment to attack directly they are building up this capability and time is running out very quickly.
The quiet electorate are I think are more interested than you think as there have been polls over the the last decade from time to time which have shown that there is only a small variation of people wanting the defence spending to increase has consistently been a little plus or minus 40% and those wanting it to stay the same around 30% the rest being the reduce it or don't know. A recent poll put the numbers who considered China a threat at 32% and the support for a strike capability has been in the 60 t0 70% range. The problem is the pollies who wont debate the defence issues to raise awareness as this would reduce there money for buying votes.
I firmly believe that a air strike ability would have the greatest deterrent ability and would make any threat have to deploy at least a couple of aircraft carriers to be a threat. I also think that any threat to us would most likely be in conjunction with an attack on Australia and we could be left on our own at least initially. So that means we need to do a lot more than have patrol ships, which have little value when the crap hits the fan, which there is no guarantee that it wont.
I am including a item on NZ's defence spending based on the NATO standard which includes capital spending , which is the reason for the recent increases.
New Zealand - Military Expenditure (% Of GDP) - 1960-2019 Data | 2021 Forecast
This clearly shows how low we have got.
I think we need to place more value on our freedom and sovereignty.
We should have federated with Australia in 1901, it would have solved a lot of the problems we have as a nation.
Lol, not sure about that. NZ is not prepared to pay a fair ammont for it's own defence. I'd imagine the ammount set aside for such an arrangement would be similiarly cut price.
Do you know why we didn't join the Federation in 1901? It was because some of the Australian states were in debt at the time and the NZGOTD didn't want to end up paying for that debt. NZ was quite wealthy compared to the individual Australian states. There was also the matter of NZ independent identity which back then was just as important as it is today.
Yes I know why we didn't federate, the reason's really aren't valid today, and I've never read anything about Australian States being in debt, if you can provide a reference to that I'd like to read it.
Why didn’t New Zealand become an Australian State at Federation?
Over the summer break a member of the CEFA team visited New Zealand. After touring around the Auckland Museum a question came to mind: why didn’t New Zealand join with the six other British colonies at Federation and become an Australian State? New Zealand is mentioned in the covering clauses of...
Most of the above reasons are no longer valid, and King Dick Seddon is long dead.
It was something I read years ago at uni so don't have the reference off hand.Yes I know why we didn't federate, the reason's really aren't valid today, and I've never read anything about Australian States being in debt, if you can provide a reference to that I'd like to read it.
Why didn’t New Zealand become an Australian State at Federation?
Over the summer break a member of the CEFA team visited New Zealand. After touring around the Auckland Museum a question came to mind: why didn’t New Zealand join with the six other British colonies at Federation and become an Australian State? New Zealand is mentioned in the covering clauses of...www.cefa.org.au
Most of the above reasons are no longer valid, and King Dick Seddon is long dead.
My point is that you are grasping at straws, don't live in NZ, don't really have a clue about how the people here currently feel about things and don't grasp that the country has really changed since you have left it. You may have whanau back here, but you still don't feel the vibe of living here. You have the same problem as every other expat who hasn't been back here for long spells. And the country has changed in the last 18 months. Some of for good, and some of it isn't so good.
ngatimozart,
I’m not at all familiar with current events in New Zealand so I’d really appreciate it if you could bear with me.
What is the general attitude amongst Kiwis with regards to defence spending; i.e. would they support a major increase with the defence budget; at some point in the future if a decision was made to provide the RMZAF with a fixed wing combat capability would they be public support; etc.
I’m not at all familiar with current events in New Zealand so I’d really appreciate it if you could bear with me.
What is the general attitude amongst Kiwis with regards to defence spending; i.e. would they support a major increase with the defence budget; at some point in the future if a decision was made to provide the RMZAF with a fixed wing combat capability would they be public support; etc.
I did 20 years in the RNZAF and have found that when I talk about defence to others in the population there is a general level of support. However what I think needs to happen firstly is that a significant level of informed debate should precede any change in capability in the NZDF. Unfortunately a large number of the population and in particular our politicians have no idea as to what is needed and how to achieve this and this is due to the deliberate policy of the major political parties not to debate the issue.
A friend of mine who was a strong advocate of defence in the National party at the time, had a long conversation with John Key on the subject about 10 years ago and said that he was simplistic, dismissive and not at all interested in the subject. This would apply to most of our politicians.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I don’t believe many Canadians want to listen to an informed debate on defence and the pollies know this which is why defence hasn’t been mentioned so far in the current election campaign. I suspect NZ is similar and will remain so until “stuff” happens. Too late at that point of course.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
???
I am not sure where the Kiwi part comes in with your handle "KiwiRob"... or even if you are a Kiwi... or when the last time you were here... or is it false advertising... but if said NZ should just join the Aussie federation today most Kiwi's would probably lash out at you... we have a more sense of who we are today, that we can stand on our own two feet, our own sense of identity.
Joining the Aussie Federation would cause a backlash, the way they treat the Aboriginals would cause a major stir in NZ especially NZ Maori, refugees would be another stirring point.
If the Aussie controlled our GDP budget will they guarantee that things like ACC and our health care stay, will they spend money on the things we want? Will they keep the Anti Nuke policy? We will forced into war like postures that we don't want or agree with...
And finally, nobody calls me an Aussie and gets away with it...
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Who said we would want you anyway
Part 1 of 2: Can the NZDF be given more resources?
2. A330MRTT, would certainly reduce risks for future C-130J medical evacuation fights into Antarctica. Quoted in relation to RNZAF’s conduct of a medevac from Antarctica in July 2021, Air Commodore Shaun Sexton said: “Flying to Antarctica is one of the highest risk missions we fly due to the lack of divert airfields and inability to get down and back without refuelling. The crews therefore are highly trained to analyse the situation with regards to the weather and the airfield state before making a decision to proceed.” They can refuel the C-130Js after take-off to mange the risk associated with the lack of divert airfields.
3. Given NZ’s limited order of P-8As, the ability to extend fight-time on station (by mid-air refuelling) in a SAR, could save a life.
1. Do you think it is possible for NZ to get 2 A330MRTT, given that the RSAF is able to show its utility in non-combat operations, to evacuate our badly injured in Taiwan and Afghans? Or is that a bridge too far?
2. A330MRTT, would certainly reduce risks for future C-130J medical evacuation fights into Antarctica. Quoted in relation to RNZAF’s conduct of a medevac from Antarctica in July 2021, Air Commodore Shaun Sexton said: “Flying to Antarctica is one of the highest risk missions we fly due to the lack of divert airfields and inability to get down and back without refuelling. The crews therefore are highly trained to analyse the situation with regards to the weather and the airfield state before making a decision to proceed.” They can refuel the C-130Js after take-off to mange the risk associated with the lack of divert airfields.
3. Given NZ’s limited order of P-8As, the ability to extend fight-time on station (by mid-air refuelling) in a SAR, could save a life.
Last edited:
It would be an ideal solution because of that. There is also the commonality not only with Singapore, but more importantly Australia. They would also refuel the P-8A as well. In my mind three A330MRTT would be better. Although my compatriot will disagree.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to forget the utility of defence assets ashore, afloat and above where there is a humanitarian crisis for some sort of local unrest (Solomon Islands for instance). Defence is not just for the big players but addresses regional unrest as well (noting big players may stoke such outcomes).
Part 2 of 2: Can the NZDF be given more resources?
5. In a Solomon Islands crisis scenario (3,956.73 km away from Christchurch), imagine what 2 A300MRTT and 6 C-130Js can do to fly in troops and equipment. During the Feb 2011 Christchurch earthquake, the RSAF used 2 C-130Hs and 1 KC-135R to bring in our Command element of HQ7SIB and our civil defence DART team’s equipment. And because the RSAF operates 10 C-130Hs, we could afford to station 2 C-130Hs to support the NZ Government, for a few weeks without disrupting our normal training needs. Even for flying oxygen cylinders to India or Indonesia, our C-130Hs are heavily tasked.
6. In the near future, in a Solomon Islands crisis scenario:
7. IMHO, NZDF has less than the minimum aircraft required and are forced to make do. The issue is having the right mix. Please feel free to correct me, if I have missed something.
4. Given a choice, I would prefer that NZDF acquire a 5th P-8A (beyond the current 4) to increase the ISR capability of your navy or a 6th C-130J (beyond the current 5), to support army taskings. If NZ deploy 2 x C-130s for 2 months, your army and airforce can’t make do with only 3 C-130s at home.
5. In a Solomon Islands crisis scenario (3,956.73 km away from Christchurch), imagine what 2 A300MRTT and 6 C-130Js can do to fly in troops and equipment. During the Feb 2011 Christchurch earthquake, the RSAF used 2 C-130Hs and 1 KC-135R to bring in our Command element of HQ7SIB and our civil defence DART team’s equipment. And because the RSAF operates 10 C-130Hs, we could afford to station 2 C-130Hs to support the NZ Government, for a few weeks without disrupting our normal training needs. Even for flying oxygen cylinders to India or Indonesia, our C-130Hs are heavily tasked.
6. In the near future, in a Solomon Islands crisis scenario:
(a) China could effortlessly use 12 to 20 Xi'an Y-20 to move their rapid deployment troops in support of their operations and keep 4 to 8 to support local operations for months on end. That’s even before we consider the PLA(N)’s capability to move armoured and artillery forces to a nearby port to unload — 10+ PLA brigades have conducted maritime transport/amphib training activities since June 2021. They are prepared to deploy, having trained for it. When that happens, the combined effort of all FPDA members to influence outcomes would just be over looked. NZ’s ability to help your allies, by deploying 2 to 4 C-130Js will become more important.
(b) China plays rough in the game of international diplomacy. A trip by the US VP can be delayed by reports of a Havana Syndrome case — they can do more harm than joe public in NZ think, even if they don’t shoot at NZ troops. The PLA may not be in direct conflict with your troops, but NZ may still face the need to evacuate people who feel ill from ‘XYZ’ weapons that leave no trace.
7. IMHO, NZDF has less than the minimum aircraft required and are forced to make do. The issue is having the right mix. Please feel free to correct me, if I have missed something.
Last edited: