NZDF General discussion thread

[Depot Dog]

I find it sad the depth New Zealand defence sunk due to lack of political will. My despair is the spirit of ANZAC. In the RAAF I met many Kiwi. I cannot think of a finer fighting force who has been betrayed by all government parties. We are mates, that means we have each others back. That is the Anzac tradition.

Being excluded from AUKUS is an insult. Up to about 1990 there would of been no alliance without Australia and New Zealand together. Remember AUKUS is not just submarines but also technology transfer. This technology transfer would be a winner.

You guys are at a crossroad. Either you become as some in the media call you a hermit country. Or use the AUKUS snub as a wake up call. Get your head out of the sand, have a good look around. Then engage with your mates. Speaking for my fellow Australians I'm sure the ANZAC spirit in us will come alive. Mates help mates.

Then the only disagreement will be bowling under arm.

Regards
DD

 

[John Fedup]

I find it sad the depth New Zealand defence sunk due to lack of political will. My despair is the spirit of ANZAC. In the RAAF I met many Kiwi. I cannot think of a finer fighting force who has been betrayed by all government parties. We are mates, that means we have each others back. That is the Anzac tradition.

Being excluded from AUKUS is an insult. Up to about 1990 there would of been no alliance without Australia and New Zealand together. Remember AUKUS is not just submarines but also technology transfer. This technology transfer would be a winner.

You guys are at a crossroad. Either you become as some in the media call you a hermit country. Or use the AUKUS snub as a wake up call. Get your head out of the sand, have a good look around. Then engage with your mates. Speaking for my fellow Australians I'm sure the ANZAC spirit in us will come alive. Mates help mates.

Then the only disagreement will be bowling under arm.

Regards
DD

Setting aside the submarine component of AUKUS, neither NZ nor Canada have made decent investments in defence R&D like Australia has been doing for some time now. Australia brings something to the table, the two junior 5eyes bring SFA which is why we aren’t in.

 

[Rob c]

The problem as I see it is that for years there has not been a significant amount of knowledgeable debate in the public arena. This has led to a public which are very much uninformed about defence matters and a political system which the people in it don't understand defence to any depth and don't want the public to have any understanding either. This has been a deliberate policy of the major political parties over the years.
The other point of the AUKUS agreement is that is that some commentators are saying that it makes Australia a bigger strategic target, which may be so and if this is the case then by default NZ becomes one too, as we can be considered to be the doorway to the Australian east coast. This is something I doubt will even cross our pollies minds. As pollies don't like to ever admit that they have got things wrong getting them to swallow Mr. C's dead rats will require someone to physically jam them down their throats.

 

[Samson]

.
With regard to specifically the British Type 26 Frigate program there is something else at play here and that is the current negotiations between the United Kingdom and New Zealand in regard to the free trade agreement they are working on. An agreement in principle was supposed to be reached between the two parties by 30th of August, but that day has passed and reports are that hurdles need to be overcome that are not trivial. The New Zealand negotiators are under instruction to try and get the same agricultural market access as what we had before the UK joined the European Union in 1973. But this won’t be easy with significant sensitivities from the British side particularly with beef, lamb and dairy – the exact products NZ wants to market access for. Many will be aware that when the UK joined the EU this was an absolute sledgehammer blow to the New Zealand economy and this played no small part to the relative economic decline that New Zealand suffered for decades afterward. So, regaining access to our ‘traditional market’ is something that has been dreamed of by both the NZ Government and exporters for quite a long time.


During most trade negotiations the New Zealand Government and trade negotiators often have limited bargaining power as the country has one of the most open markets in the world and therefore has little tariffs and trade barriers that can be taken down in exchange market accesses somewhere else. This time things are a bit different though, as Britain wants to join the CPTTP and as one of the agreements founding members, New Zealand has veto powers over them joining and they are threatening to use this against the UK unless major headway is made in opening up agricultural trade. There is however another very powerful card New Zealand has up it’s sleave here if they choose to use it, and one far less punitive. That would be including an order of three Glasgow built, type 26 frigates, as part of the FTA. Boris Johnson made comments in Perth in 2019 that he thinks New Zealand will ‘come in’ to the type 26 frigate program - so you can be fairly certain that the UK has brought that up during negotiations. If New Zealand did decide to go ahead with an order this would be a breakthrough for UK Shipbuilders, a major political win for Johnson and his ‘Global Britain’ and it would provide an injection of many billions of dollars into the economy right when its needed. If this was handled intelligently, combined with the CPTTP issue, the NZ Government could even get us our old agricultural market access back.


Some sort of deal here would likely have the following benefits for New Zealand: Provide the RNZN with three world class ASW frigates. Make New Zealand more of a contributor to the international rules-based order and improve the countries relationship with security partners and in particular Australia. Diversify trade away from being extremely reliant on one trading partner – yet again. Allow our exporters to help pay for the new warships through their new trade access. This would also likely be a major political win for Jacinda Ardern as she would forever be known as the PM who got our old trade access back and this would also likely muzzle her annoying farmer protestors.


And if the Poms still won’t play ball maybe offer the same sort of agricultural trade access for 4 plus Mogami Frigates past the Japanese

 

[alexsa]

.
With regard to specifically the British Type 26 Frigate program there is something else at play here and that is the current negotiations between the United Kingdom and New Zealand in regard to the free trade agreement they are working on. An agreement in principle was supposed to be reached between the two parties by 30th of August, but that day has passed and reports are that hurdles need to be overcome that are not trivial. The New Zealand negotiators are under instruction to try and get the same agricultural market access as what we had before the UK joined the European Union in 1973. But this won’t be easy with significant sensitivities from the British side particularly with beef, lamb and dairy – the exact products NZ wants to market access for. Many will be aware that when the UK joined the EU this was an absolute sledgehammer blow to the New Zealand economy and this played no small part to the relative economic decline that New Zealand suffered for decades afterward. So, regaining access to our ‘traditional market’ is something that has been dreamed of by both the NZ Government and exporters for quite a long time.


During most trade negotiations the New Zealand Government and trade negotiators often have limited bargaining power as the country has one of the most open markets in the world and therefore has little tariffs and trade barriers that can be taken down in exchange market accesses somewhere else. This time things are a bit different though, as Britain wants to join the CPTTP and as one of the agreements founding members, New Zealand has veto powers over them joining and they are threatening to use this against the UK unless major headway is made in opening up agricultural trade. There is however another very powerful card New Zealand has up it’s sleave here if they choose to use it, and one far less punitive. That would be including an order of three Glasgow built, type 26 frigates, as part of the FTA. Boris Johnson made comments in Perth in 2019 that he thinks New Zealand will ‘come in’ to the type 26 frigate program - so you can be fairly certain that the UK has brought that up during negotiations. If New Zealand did decide to go ahead with an order this would be a breakthrough for UK Shipbuilders, a major political win for Johnson and his ‘Global Britain’ and it would provide an injection of many billions of dollars into the economy right when its needed. If this was handled intelligently, combined with the CPTTP issue, the NZ Government could even get us our old agricultural market access back.


Some sort of deal here would likely have the following benefits for New Zealand: Provide the RNZN with three world class ASW frigates. Make New Zealand more of a contributor to the international rules-based order and improve the countries relationship with security partners and in particular Australia. Diversify trade away from being extremely reliant on one trading partner – yet again. Allow our exporters to help pay for the new warships through their new trade access. This would also likely be a major political win for Jacinda Ardern as she would forever be known as the PM who got our old trade access back and this would also likely muzzle her annoying farmer protestors.


And if the Poms still won’t play ball maybe offer the same sort of agricultural trade access for 4 plus Mogami Frigates past the Japanese

A very good summary in my view. I will throw one wrinkle in the works. With the ANZAC programme NZ got a pretty good workshare deal. This was based on the expectation of 4 frigates. This ... as we know.. did not happen. But the work share remained. It was quite beneficial to NZ.

Time has passed but there would be some that would reflect on the fact that the T26 is to be built in Australia so why not go that way this time to ensure maximum commonality in systems and training and support.

Some may view a decisions to buy UK on this basis to be a bit of a backhander noting how the ANZAC turned out.

My view is NZ should do what is best for their defence but that issue lingers in the background,

 

[MrConservative]

A number of commentators in NZ have suggested that the Australian Nuke deal and the Type 26 got Australia over the line with respect to the signing of their FTA which saw them get very good Ag sector access as well as the services side which is linked to immigration. The transfer of people and services is of course important to both sides especially with those two landmark UK-OZ projects.

Because it does not have a strategic approach to Defence procurement and treats it somewhat uniquely as a silo separate to trade it cant play that particular card. But yes it does have the Veto card. However, Japan is very keen to get the UK into the CPTTP and that wont change with either Sanae Takaichi or Taro Kono the two likely candidates to replace Suga as PM. So NZ pulling the Veto card will peeve a very important and powerful friend.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think that NZ threatening or using the CPTPP veto card on the Poms it would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces. There is no long term advantage in it and many disadvantages for us, including upsetting the Japanese. It would also annoy both the Australians and Americans. If we are itching to us a veto on someone we would be putting it to far better use vetoing the PRC application to the CPTPP.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

I think that NZ threatening or using the CPTPP veto card on the Poms it would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces. There is no long term advantage in it and many disadvantages for us, including upsetting the Japanese. It would also annoy both the Australians and Americans. If we are itching to us a veto on someone we would be putting it to far better use vetoing the PRC application to the CPTPP.

I doubt there will be any vetoing the Poms... but there will most definitely be some sort of backhand deal going on that's a given that's how trade deals work, , but whether it involves anything defence ie; buy the "type 26 frigate and we will open our AG sector up..." or vise versa... time will tell and we probably will never know the full in's and outs of it...

However, vetoing the PRC on the other hand and that probably won't be us... lol (looks across the ditch)

 

[MrConservative]

Of course if the UK does get into the CPTTP - using the Pitcairn's Island card, which was the way that the Japanese said was legal enough for them as it is a piece of UK territory in the Pacific, then the French will probably start wanting to join. (looking across the ditch again)

 

[John Fedup]

I think that NZ threatening or using the CPTPP veto card on the Poms it would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces. There is no long term advantage in it and many disadvantages for us, including upsetting the Japanese. It would also annoy both the Australians and Americans. If we are itching to us a veto on someone we would be putting it to far better use vetoing the PRC application to the CPTPP.

What is the US option here, can they just announce they have changed their mind and return? If not, then are they in the same boat as China, a unanimous vote? If it is the latter, one of them getting in first could be problematic for the other. Perhaps entry would require a ban on their voting for admission by the other.

 

[ADMk2]

I find it sad the depth New Zealand defence sunk due to lack of political will. My despair is the spirit of ANZAC. In the RAAF I met many Kiwi. I cannot think of a finer fighting force who has been betrayed by all government parties. We are mates, that means we have each others back. That is the Anzac tradition.

Being excluded from AUKUS is an insult. Up to about 1990 there would of been no alliance without Australia and New Zealand together. Remember AUKUS is not just submarines but also technology transfer. This technology transfer would be a winner.

You guys are at a crossroad. Either you become as some in the media call you a hermit country. Or use the AUKUS snub as a wake up call. Get your head out of the sand, have a good look around. Then engage with your mates. Speaking for my fellow Australians I'm sure the ANZAC spirit in us will come alive. Mates help mates.

Then the only disagreement will be bowling under arm.

Regards
DD

Absolutely. I find it reprehensible that NZ pollies promote their lefty agenda and ignore their reality. Every single drop of oil in NZ comes from Singapore and Korea, ie: straight past China and yet they argue that China’s action has “no” bearing on them? Oh we will ban any RAN nuclear powered vessels from our waters because of “reasons” but we’ll happily accept their help in maintaining ‘our‘ supply lines…

NZ would grind to a halt if China decided tomorrow to militarily interrupt their supply chain even if it were merely indirectly through some aggression within Asia, yet it‘s not a responsibility of the NZDF to even attempt to protect this supply chain and it’s fine for the NZ Government to let this responsibility lie with their “allies” and not even try to seriously contribute?

This is how NZ Defence decisions are being perceived broadly, I think…

 

[Shanesworld]

A very good summary in my view. I will throw one wrinkle in the works. With the ANZAC programme NZ got a pretty good workshare deal. This was based on the expectation of 4 frigates. This ... as we know.. did not happen. But the work share remained. It was quite beneficial to NZ.

Time has passed but there would be some that would reflect on the fact that the T26 is to be built in Australia so why not go that way this time to ensure maximum commonality in systems and training and support.

Some may view a decisions to buy UK on this basis to be a bit of a backhander noting how the ANZAC turned out.

My view is NZ should do what is best for their defence but that issue lingers in the background,

I know their hercs have been flogged but.... Some of them i am told had very interesting sigint capabilities. Send someone over to assess them for refurb and pick up whatever is worth it. Maybe apply that to the even more heavily thrashed chinook hc 4's? Then 6 type 32's, the 24 typhoons t1 put thru centurion, a couple of hawk t1's, the vanguards (in the opv role) and we're sorted.....

 

[Gracie1234]

It does make sense that everything will be on the table for the FTA with Britain and there is an opportunity for their defense industry to increase their presence here. I do agree it is interesting that this agreement is taking so much longer than the Australian one, it is likely to be very similar. I agree it is a good opportunity to diversify our trade and potentially increase our defense capability.

 

[MrConservative]

I know their hercs have been flogged but.... Some of them i am told had very interesting sigint capabilities. Send someone over to assess them for refurb and pick up whatever is worth it.

The RAF C-130J-30 fleet have done on average of 600 hours flying hours per annum over the last 2 decades and some airframes started to be put through a CBR and deep maintenance programme at Marshals so should be capable of delivering at least another 20 years of reliable service. They could be part of an innovative solution for the EMAC project with further modifications like the Minotaur Mission System into a HC-130J like capability as well as provide additional tactical-light strategic airlift to complement the five incoming new airframes acquired under the FAMC project.

 

[ngatimozart]

A Foreign Minister Mahuta interview WRT AUKUS and NZ. She's still pushing the NZ independent foreign policy barrow which I believe is a logical fallacy.

Is Aotearoa being left out of the AUKUS pact?

Aotearoa will stick to its choice not to join the military pact, confident that it will not harm its relations with Australia, the UK and US, Foreign...

www.teaomaori.news

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

To be fair... no matter what we do it is an "independent foreign policy" it always has been that... just that sometimes it aligns more with say Australia or UK etc and sometimes it doesn't...

 

[Hone C]

A Foreign Minister Mahuta interview WRT AUKUS and NZ. She's still pushing the NZ independent foreign policy barrow which I believe is a logical fallacy.

Is Aotearoa being left out of the AUKUS pact?

Aotearoa will stick to its choice not to join the military pact, confident that it will not harm its relations with Australia, the UK and US, Foreign...

www.teaomaori.news

It's also disingenuous of Mahuta to suggest that somehow it was a choice NZ had to opt in or out of, or that it won't exclude us from other opportunities.

A lot of Kiwis are stuck in the mindset that the "rules based order" will just keep the goodies flowing with only small, niche contributions on our part, leaving us free to hash out FTAs with all and sundry.

Simon Ewing-Jarvie's latest episode did a good job of illustrating what sort of security investment a true 'independent foreign policy' would require. A massive increase in intelligence, diplomatic and defence R&D spending, merchant shipping, an MPA fleet of around 12-16 manned aircraft plus UAVs and satellites, a 12-16 frigate/destroyer navy, division sized army, etc, etc.

NZ either goes alone or provides the above in concert with allies. Ms Mahuta doesn't seem to get that the later eventually get feed up if you make a habit of shirking responsibilities. The polies can keep acting as if they're not bothered they didn't get an invite to the party, but should be deeply concerned about the changing global and regional dynamics.

 

[ngatimozart]

Simon is on the mark about most things but we can't support a 12 - 16 frigate / destroyer navy no matter how much money the government pours into it. It comes down to suitably qualified personnel being recruited, trained, and retained.

He's right on NZ obtaining some merchant ships that NZ owned and flagged. Crewing could be NZ nationals and Pacific Islanders. It doesn't have to be many ships and they don't have to be ginormous.

A fleet of 6 - 8 P-8A is enough. Other assets including UAV and second tier manned surveillance platforms would be fill the airborne maritime surveillance capability nicely. A airborne maritime strike component comprising of fast jets as well as the P-8A fleet is another requirement.

WRT to the Army, his brigade is an actual combat brigade, with the ability to field either a fully self sustaining enhanced / reinforced battalion, or or two fully self sustaining battalions. Each battalion contains its own fire support, air defence, logistics, engineering etc.

However none of this is any good until the NZ government formulates an overarching comprehensive National Security Strategy that is all of government and includes resilience. Until that is done we cannot formulate a defence strategy for NZDF and a DCP for equipment etc.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Dr Wayne Mapp at it again he says

Many readers will know that most of my Line of Defence articles this year have referred to the need to renew the naval fleet, most notably the Anzac frigates. I have been postulating that an all OPV fleet might be the answer, predicated on the basis that our prime interest is the South West Pacific, from Antarctica to the Equator. In particular I have mentioned the ice capable Harry DeWolf as a credible option.

AUKUS changes all that.

blah blah blah

I should note that New Zealand might still need at least one ice capable Harry DeWolf class of ship. New Zealand has real interests in the Southern Ocean and there are not many alternatives for that role.

Wayne Mapp: Reflections on the implications of AUKUS for New Zealand's Navy - Defsec

 

[ngatimozart]

Well that's good that he's come around and TBH I don't have a problem with the Babcock OMT Arrowhead 140 with CODLAD or CODLAG plus IEP and 32 Mk-41 VLS etc.