Was about to post this very thing. When was the last time a RAN submarine visited NZ for a port visit anyway? I assume they are usually too busy for that sort of thing. Hell, I’ve only seen a Collins once in Brisbane that I can recall and that was Talisman Sabre just gone…
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Unfortunately that is about it.
You end up fighting with what you have, and as I get older, I feel the burden of the fact that we are sending our children to do the fighting.
From that perspective, I find the unwillingness of the New Zealand government to properly equip the NZDF very challenging.
All in the context of the ADF being comprehensively modernised - for a long time I feel the Australian government has been guilty of the same thing.
Regards,
Massive
I really don't think there was much jaw clenching or hand ringing about this in Canberra, or indeed, Wellington. The NZ anti nuclear stance is well known and accepted. If a sub were to visit a NZ port, whether nuclear or otherwise, that is a vital piece of intelligence that a potential adversary would love to have. It places a potential enemy's high value deadly asset thousands of kilometers away from where it should be. The unknown whereabouts factor is lost. And that of course is one of the crucial factors that make subs so strategically highly valued; the unknown whereabouts factor.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
2016 RNZN 75th anniversary... but yes very rare...
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Thanks that's very informative (and allays concerns that future RAN nuc subs could not pass through Cook Strait because of the legislation). So they can then (as well as anyone else's, should they for example be seeking access to or from nearly ocean trenches).
I didn't have "port visits" primarily in mind (as there would never be a real need, unless it was for defence diplomacy etc, eg HMAS Dechaineux was the last RAN sub visit in 2016 but that was merely to attend RNZN anniversary celebrations).
But my other concerns were:
*RNZAF/RNZN potentially losing access to "friendly nation" subs for ASW training or combined nation exercises within our locales.
*The "optics" of NZ's closest ally being "banned" from "NZ waters". Especially when NZ indirectly benefits from RAN nuc sub operations in the wider Indo-Pacific (mind you so does many other nations as a result too, but at least they aren't "banning" elements of the ADF)!
*This is a once in a generation chance to effect change (merely an amendment to legislation) that fixes structural issues with NZ's relationships with nuclear powered allies and friends ... at minimal political cost to the two main NZ political parties. And when because of the "wider geo-political situation", would see widespread public support.
To be clear, I am in no way advocating that NZ "muscle" its way into AUKUS - I merely wish to ensure any NZ contribution in a general sense to the "wider good" (of maintaining good international law and stability etc) can be done seamlessly without any political pressures or compromises rearing up unexpectedly.
danonz
Member
Well sky news didn't take the sub ban to well - im happy with any pressure put on the govt to increase defense spending.
www.newshub.co.nz
From the article above.
"Not very neighbourly is it," he said on Friday night. "Just exposes what a joke our cousins are across the ditch when it comes to defence and security."
AUKUS: New Zealand labelled 'a joke' after nuclear-free stance blocks Australia's nuclear-powered submarines
"I think they just want to hide over there and hope that no one turns up."
www.newshub.co.nz
From the article above.
"Not very neighbourly is it," he said on Friday night. "Just exposes what a joke our cousins are across the ditch when it comes to defence and security."
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
nothing new here to see move along...Well sky news didn't take the sub ban to well - im happy with any pressure put on the govt to increase defense spending.
AUKUS: New Zealand labelled 'a joke' after nuclear-free stance blocks Australia's nuclear-powered submarines
"I think they just want to hide over there and hope that no one turns up."
From the article above.
"Not very neighbourly is it," he said on Friday night. "Just exposes what a joke our cousins are across the ditch when it comes to defence and security."
They have been saying that for years...
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
That sand pit that NZG Ostrich has got its head stuck in just keeps getting deeper doesn't it? Australia buying SSNs should be raising serious red flags in Wellington but Ardern sticks her fingers in her hers and hums loudly.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I think Ardern only made statements on Thursday (nothing since AFAIK), which was simply standard rhetoric in response to local media questions about whether future Australian subs would be welcome in NZ waters (i.e. the standard "no because of legislation etc").
I would suggest that the NZG is now working through what this all means (not just the initial announcement. but other aspects such as technology and intelligence sharing, what other projects are being discussed etc), including should NZ be "banning" its #1 ally and what are the implications and unintended consequences of doing so.
I wouldn't expect Ardern to be centre of all this - it will be left to the bureaucrats and her officials and key Ministers - and she will then endorse (and front) the established narrative.
I suspect "doing nothing" (and pretending these initiatives aren't happening) can't be a realistic option, as it could highlight a widening (and embarrassing) gap between Aust and NZ strategic thinking and reality.
Ardern govt surprised by news of Aussie decision to buy nuclear subs and form new security partnership
What do you do when your neighbour goes nuclear? The Ardern government will be tackling that question after being taken aback by news the Australians are to buy US nuclear attack submarines and wi…
pointofordernz.wordpress.com
But what would NZ do I do not know. Interestingly though previous DefMin Wayne Mapp (who was scorned here for suggesting replacing the RNZN Frigates and OPV's with Harry DeWolf type patrol craft) appears to be suggesting now that NZ replace its Frigates with the Type 26 (to be compatible with its allies) and to let the Australian govt know that.
Quote:
Mapp, who was defence minister from 2008 to 2011, said defence assessments in the past decade made clear the frigates were one of the three “critical” pieces of military hardware that needed upgrading.
“This particular [AUKUS] announcement will put quite a bit of pressure on the New Zealand Government to make it clear how they're going to replace the Anzac frigates, because they can't wish that decision away.”
........
The frigates are undergoing upgrades that would extend their use into the 2030s. But, Mapp said, it could take a decade to replace the vessels.
“We all knew that the top one of those three would in fact be the frigates. We always knew the frigate question would be the tough question.”
The Australians are buying nine new “Hunter class” frigates to replace its fleet of eight Anzac class frigates, which were jointly acquired with New Zealand’s current frigates.
The United Kingdom and Canada were also acquiring the same type of warships for their navies and, Mapp said, New Zealand could do the same.
“There’s a hell of a lot of logic to that, isn’t there?”
He said the current Labour Government, which has a majority in Parliament and is currently re-evaluating the goverment’s defence capability plan, might be advised to commit to the frigates now, as such a decision may be more difficult in any future coalition government.
Why doesn't New Zealand have submarines? AUKUS highlights pressing military question for Government
The AUKUS partnership has New Zealand’s only formal defence ally, Australia, turning nuclear-powered. And it has highlighted a sizeable difference in military might.
www.stuff.co.nz
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Well from Dr Wayne Mapp that is a change in his thought process I thought he wanted us to have 6 Harry DeWolf OPV and become an armed coast guard...The United Kingdom and Canada were also acquiring the same type of warships for their navies and, Mapp said, New Zealand could do the same.
“There’s a hell of a lot of logic to that, isn’t there?”
He said the current Labour Government, which has a majority in Parliament and is currently re-evaluating the goverment’s defence capability plan, might be advised to commit to the frigates now, as such a decision may be more difficult in any future coalition government.
Why doesn't New Zealand have submarines? AUKUS highlights pressing military question for Government
The AUKUS partnership has New Zealand’s only formal defence ally, Australia, turning nuclear-powered. And it has highlighted a sizeable difference in military might.
CJohn
Active Member
Yes, nearly fell off my chair reading that surprise statement, can a leopard change it's spots, let's pope so.
Much more to come of this overall big strategic story me thinks.
There are 2 big dead rats and 1 smaller dead rat with respect to New Zealand and the ANZAC relationship.
1. The 1986 Nuclear Free legislation.
2. The cancellation of the F-16 order and subsequent exit from the Nowra agreement and demise of the RNZAF Air Combat capability.
3. The smaller dead rat being the cancellation of the 3rd and 4th Anzac Class vessels.
The loss of two ANZAC Class frigates in RNZN service instead of the four meant that the ANZAC nations were down 12.5% of surface combatants for most of the last two decades. Because of just having two we literally became a part-time combat navy.
If the F-16 deal had been left alone, instead of having around 106 front line strike aircraft amongst the two Anzac nations (RAAF only in this case) over the last two decades we would have had 128. In other words 22% of the Anzac countries strike capability simply vanished.
Twenty years on since the strategic blunder of losing those real tangible combat capabilities will soon even be offering less shortly.
Australia flew 18 AP-3C Orions and we still fly six P-3K2's. Shortly Australia will fly 14 P-8A's and 4 MC-55's in other words maintaining 18 Airframes, however we will be reducing from six P-3K2's down to just four P-8A's. In other words a further 8% loss for the two Anzac nations with respect to our collective tangible combat capabilities and the geo-strategic deterrence that it provides in our huge part of the Indo-Pacific region we share. And to think that the Clark government seriously were thinking 20 years ago of removing even those 6 Orions.
So if Jacindarella and the NZ political class won't swallow the Nuclear Free dead rat that has become like a religious cannon (that would be like my dear late church going mother becoming an atheist - so no chance there), then the absolute credibility of any future commitment to our regional neighbours may mean Jacindarella and the NZ political class sure as hell better start preparing the dinner table to swallow a few of these dead rats. The excuses of the last 20 years no longer hold water. This is not a benign strategic environment anymore.
NZ cannot and must not treat its Pacific reset to simply mean as an NZDF is - "Hey you guys can do all the heavy lifting we are going to doubly concentrate on all the lovely stuff we've been doing for the last 20 years" - a bit of HADR relief over there and a bit of hearts and minds style peace-keeping over here, a bit of "you naughty fisherman exploiting the environment" over there, a dash of earnest science work down on the ice, the knocking up the odd village school, repairing the community centre roof, "medic visits on an isolated atoll, and those wonderful photo ops of the troops teaching the smiling kiddies how to play touch rugby. Which yes we must still do - but that and a deployed SAS Squadron, a tanker, a frigate and a single P-8A is not just a token effort, but will soon become an insult.
Deep down I greatly suspect beyond all of her hand waving, face pulling, wobbling the head about, serious glances mixed with toothy smiles to the camera - that is all as in the above that she means to do and all she wants to do - if she and NZ is allowed to get away with it. The fluffy puppy stuff of the military spectrum is pretty much the only thing she really is contemplating when says that "she is looking at this through a Pacific lens" and (inferring) that New Zealander's are only needing to do this much and (meaning) this is all smoke and mirrors anyway - and that is enough for the NZ public and the global audience.
Good luck with that - have a look at the balance of trade value between NZ and the small Pacific states - (NB: lets be honest here they only give a stuff about the Polynesian ones because that is where the electoral votes are in metropolitan Auckland and Wellington, occasionally the Melanesian ones like Fiji to lecture them, and completely ignore the Micronesians ones who now effectively left the Pacific island Forum because NZ did not have the nous to influence the Polynesian states to not promote their candidate and give the Micronesians there turn in the SecGen role) - And now have a look at the balance of trade between the real markets of NZ goods and services around the Indo-Pacific. That self obsession with trade, and it's silo mentality mixed with the current disconnect of a self-absorbed fluffy puppy defence posture, wont survive if the PRC puts the trading screws on us next or possibly becomes a trading pariah and thus sanctioned amongst other major trading nations we strategically abandoned - the tatters left being a few Polynesian islands that we invested our world view on wont move our economic dial.
I also do not think that New Zealand's self absorbed "independent" foreign policy and fluffy puppy defence posture that might be popular in terms of "domestic political consumption" is anywhere near what is now the new normative - the new expectation of behaviour and meaningful security contribution in terms the new reality within the Indo-Pacific. This is not just about Australia or the US - it is also fast becoming an issue of credibility with the Japanese, South Koreans, Singaporeans and all other Indo-Pacific nations. It about supporting them and backing them to keep the rules based system we all collectively prosper from and respect and the fair and free trade and personal freedoms that is generated from it. NZ simply doing more of the same in a narrowcasted self absorbed way may no longer be tolerated.
Cheers, MrC
1. The 1986 Nuclear Free legislation.
2. The cancellation of the F-16 order and subsequent exit from the Nowra agreement and demise of the RNZAF Air Combat capability.
3. The smaller dead rat being the cancellation of the 3rd and 4th Anzac Class vessels.
The loss of two ANZAC Class frigates in RNZN service instead of the four meant that the ANZAC nations were down 12.5% of surface combatants for most of the last two decades. Because of just having two we literally became a part-time combat navy.
If the F-16 deal had been left alone, instead of having around 106 front line strike aircraft amongst the two Anzac nations (RAAF only in this case) over the last two decades we would have had 128. In other words 22% of the Anzac countries strike capability simply vanished.
Twenty years on since the strategic blunder of losing those real tangible combat capabilities will soon even be offering less shortly.
Australia flew 18 AP-3C Orions and we still fly six P-3K2's. Shortly Australia will fly 14 P-8A's and 4 MC-55's in other words maintaining 18 Airframes, however we will be reducing from six P-3K2's down to just four P-8A's. In other words a further 8% loss for the two Anzac nations with respect to our collective tangible combat capabilities and the geo-strategic deterrence that it provides in our huge part of the Indo-Pacific region we share. And to think that the Clark government seriously were thinking 20 years ago of removing even those 6 Orions.
So if Jacindarella and the NZ political class won't swallow the Nuclear Free dead rat that has become like a religious cannon (that would be like my dear late church going mother becoming an atheist - so no chance there), then the absolute credibility of any future commitment to our regional neighbours may mean Jacindarella and the NZ political class sure as hell better start preparing the dinner table to swallow a few of these dead rats. The excuses of the last 20 years no longer hold water. This is not a benign strategic environment anymore.
NZ cannot and must not treat its Pacific reset to simply mean as an NZDF is - "Hey you guys can do all the heavy lifting we are going to doubly concentrate on all the lovely stuff we've been doing for the last 20 years" - a bit of HADR relief over there and a bit of hearts and minds style peace-keeping over here, a bit of "you naughty fisherman exploiting the environment" over there, a dash of earnest science work down on the ice, the knocking up the odd village school, repairing the community centre roof, "medic visits on an isolated atoll, and those wonderful photo ops of the troops teaching the smiling kiddies how to play touch rugby. Which yes we must still do - but that and a deployed SAS Squadron, a tanker, a frigate and a single P-8A is not just a token effort, but will soon become an insult.
Deep down I greatly suspect beyond all of her hand waving, face pulling, wobbling the head about, serious glances mixed with toothy smiles to the camera - that is all as in the above that she means to do and all she wants to do - if she and NZ is allowed to get away with it. The fluffy puppy stuff of the military spectrum is pretty much the only thing she really is contemplating when says that "she is looking at this through a Pacific lens" and (inferring) that New Zealander's are only needing to do this much and (meaning) this is all smoke and mirrors anyway - and that is enough for the NZ public and the global audience.
Good luck with that - have a look at the balance of trade value between NZ and the small Pacific states - (NB: lets be honest here they only give a stuff about the Polynesian ones because that is where the electoral votes are in metropolitan Auckland and Wellington, occasionally the Melanesian ones like Fiji to lecture them, and completely ignore the Micronesians ones who now effectively left the Pacific island Forum because NZ did not have the nous to influence the Polynesian states to not promote their candidate and give the Micronesians there turn in the SecGen role) - And now have a look at the balance of trade between the real markets of NZ goods and services around the Indo-Pacific. That self obsession with trade, and it's silo mentality mixed with the current disconnect of a self-absorbed fluffy puppy defence posture, wont survive if the PRC puts the trading screws on us next or possibly becomes a trading pariah and thus sanctioned amongst other major trading nations we strategically abandoned - the tatters left being a few Polynesian islands that we invested our world view on wont move our economic dial.
I also do not think that New Zealand's self absorbed "independent" foreign policy and fluffy puppy defence posture that might be popular in terms of "domestic political consumption" is anywhere near what is now the new normative - the new expectation of behaviour and meaningful security contribution in terms the new reality within the Indo-Pacific. This is not just about Australia or the US - it is also fast becoming an issue of credibility with the Japanese, South Koreans, Singaporeans and all other Indo-Pacific nations. It about supporting them and backing them to keep the rules based system we all collectively prosper from and respect and the fair and free trade and personal freedoms that is generated from it. NZ simply doing more of the same in a narrowcasted self absorbed way may no longer be tolerated.
Cheers, MrC
It is there in black and white in a couple of pieces he has written for Line of Defence magazine. He wanted AOPS's for the RNZN instead of frigates.
I think Wayne may be smart enough to realise that Thursday was a game changer. However a couple of frigates in 15 years is not going to cut it.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
From what i have heard from people who dealt with him as tf - he is all talk and self interest.
Thank you for mentioning the pacific island forum. That was a titanic screw up. I would not be surprised to see chinese "peavekeepers" in the solomons in the next couple of years.
The more i hear about helen and 80's labour party members the more i start to think of the Abata shoe salesman stories and 30 years of our foreign policy was suggested from moscow.
I have and Wayne is OK. He is a personable guy and of course he talks - he was a politician for about 20 years after all. It is that one or two areas when it comes to Defence he has blindspots, it is the idealist streak found in many in politics and the law. He genuinely wants the world to be a kinder, gentler place, more ethical place. He thinks that leading by example and avoiding confrontation is the best way forward and that everybody is - after open dialogue or skilful mediation - as rational as him. However, they are not. But if he has had a penny drop moment and finally gets what many others have been saying for years - then good for him. Changing your mind and not staying in a fixed position even against the weight of logic and evidence means you are stupid. Wayne is not stupid. have to say though that going from AOPS's on the Thursday to Type 26's on the Saturday is quite some road to Damascus experience though.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If the AOPS (an likely choice for a frigate alternative) goes to T26 because of AUKUS then it’s a bonus result. A T31 or similar seems likely but between AUKUS and maybe some additional Xi over reaching, a significant frigate upgrade might be the end result.
Apart from what it brings to the party when it starts, in the pre party period NZ’s attitude towards the various probable attendees is important. If it believes that it’s interests lie chiefly with not offending the one from the north, for whatever reason, then that might imply that they will be in effect distancing itself from the others although that could be demonstrated by those others in subtle ways, at least in the early stages. This is, to some extent at least, a zero sum game and NZ needs to decide where its true national interest, as a liberal democracy, lies.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I feel like you are being a bit to kind to Mr Mapp. We need realism over idealistic optimism. This is quite a shift in a short period of time. While Australia has signalled a change, China and the wider situation has not. As you have said recently - it's no longer a benign strategic environment. It was not a benign strategic environment when he argued for AOPS. We have needed to change our mindset and capabilities long before Aust made its recent anouncemenrs with the UKUS. This has been obvious to many of the members who contribute here. Arguably Australia also long needed a stronger deterent factor (see recent ASPI/The Strategist articles about long range strike etc).
China hasn't changed and he has shifted from lets do away with our (very limited) naval combat capability to 'we need more frigates'.
While im not impressed with the current Def Min, I'm also glad Wayne is safely out of office.
The reality is that the current political bunch will quietly stick their heads in the sand and do the "I see no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil" and ignore what is going on, hoping it will all blow over. There still is this idea amongst even supposedly a significant portion of the so called intelligentsia that because they don't see a threat there is no need to do anything. But they completely miss the point that by the time they acknowledge a threat that they are already 1 to 2 decades to late to fix the damage that has been done to our ability to either deter or stop the threat. The simple fact that by the time these types have acknowledge having seen a threat you have to deal with it with what you currently have, eludes them.
What I posted above obviously struck a nerve and I thank those 12 people who ticked like. But the reality is that NZ has diluted substantially to almost non existence / part-time its combat capabilities that could contribute to the joint ADF/NZDF strategic weight that prior to 2000 it was genuinely attempting to achieve on a policy level per the 1997 DWP (which widely consulted the ADF/CoA) and unlike the Clark government did not in the Beyond 2000 and Defence Sustainability Initiative documents,
In the earlier post I said that the Nuclear Free legislation we can assume is the one dead rat New Zealand will refuse to swallow. The recent AUUKUS arrangement with the subs deal in a way is not a direct co-relative situation due to sub operations. The indirect side of the arrangement that is a different matter and will mean that New Zealand has to confront existential realities for the first time in a generation with respect to its defence posture.
As I noted tangible offensive capabilities are required from us to contribute to the Indo-Pacific security umbrella and in this part of that region this means bolstering and taking on some of that burden virtually all now shouldered on the ADF and effectively the Australian taxpayer.
The current DCP has the Anzac replacement pencilled in. The task ahead is to make that replacement project a proper capability - and the small dead rat to swallow is buying more than two surface combatants. The P-8A replacement is at hand. Another small dead rat is to acquire numbers that are at least a 1:1 replacement rather the current reduction to just four.
There are a lot of good things in the current DCP and I would not meddle with that and hopefully the higher end of the spending plan comes into fruition. But it is the missing things - the gaping capability gaps that are the concern not just for NZ, but for Australia to provide greater weight at the sharp end, and the wider security amongst our Indo-Pacific partners whom we benefit from and trade with.
That leaves the final dead rat to swallow which is an Air Combat capability. Below are edits (for reasons of space and brevity) the two reviews done prior to the cancellation of the the F-16 deal hitting the key relevant points.
Recommendations of the Final Report of the Air Combat Capability Study—October 1998 - Sir Wilson Whineray
This study recommends that the Secretary of Defence:
- Note that this study has confirmed the White Paper requirement for New Zealand to retain an air combat capability.
- Note that an air combat capability has high utility in contributing to New Zealand’s defence strategy of self-reliance in partnership, including low level security challenges to New Zealand sovereignty, our security relationship with Australia, and supporting regional and global security.
- Note that the study has confirmed the three operational roles of Close Air Support, Air Interdiction and Maritime Strike, as the best match with New Zealand’s security requirements.
- Agree that New Zealand should not consider further an Attack Helicopter or Light Attack Aircraft as a replacement for the A-4K Skyhawk. We should also not consider the P-3K Orion as the sole maritime strike capability.
- Agree that the operational performance and policy value of a current production fourth generation multi-role fighter aircraft such as an F-16C/D makes it the only capability option for meeting air combat capability requirements over the longer term.
The Quigley Report 2000
Review Of The Lease Of F-16 Aircraft For The Royal New Zealand Air Force
by the Hon. Derek Quigley
Summary and Conclusions:
1. This review is based on three long-standing defence policy assumptions:
· that balanced forces should be available to enable New Zealand to contribute to alliance operations;
· that air combat capability is an essential part of a balanced force; and
· that the three designated roles for the air combat force, close air support, air interdiction and maritime strike are appropriate for the NZDF's air combat capability.
8. In terms of existing policy, the critical mass for the air combat force is a squadron of 18 aircraft.
20. The abandonment of the Air Combat Capability would be a fundamental departure from existing policy and would have major implications on an NZDF-wide basis. There would also be diplomatic issues involved.
21. Viewed from New Zealand's point of view, there are benefits in having well-trained and well equipped Defence Force personnel. New Zealand would lose a great deal across all three services if the level of access to leading-edge military professionalism and experience were reduced.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That the Government consider approaching the United States Government with a view to renegotiate the current F-16 package to include a lesser number of aircraft.
2. That all Defence projects be reviewed as a matter of urgency, on a project by project basis, with a view to prioritising and funding them on the basis of their capacity - judged from an NZDF-wide perspective - to advance New Zealand's national interests.
The above pretty much is more relevant, more urgent today in 2021 than 21 years ago.
I congratulate the Morrison government on its bold, ballsy move on Friday with the Nuke deal and the AUKUS agreement. It is high time that the NZ Government got over itself and started sharpening the knives, and did the bold and ballsy, to fest on this last dead rat they must devour.
It should be the litmus test of commitment.