NZDF General discussion thread

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
No they're not bosom buddies, but at present they have more common interests than discordant interests. They both understand that they have far greater probability of achieving their goals by working together in areas of mutual interest.

I don't know. I think that they are having the hard word put on them by three particular FVEY partners and there's more stories in the media about the PRC threat so the public are becoming more aware. The usual suspects are decrying it as China bashing and / or we are going to ruin our economy, but more are taking notice and seeing past that. I have made a habit of reading the comments and there appears to be a change in tone with a strengthening of resolve towards a stronger stance against China. Some have said that we don't have enough ships, planes, and soldiers. Although it's totally unscientific anecdotal evidence, I do think that the public attitude towards China is becoming harder and towards Defence more favourable.

Another point is that the government has been hardening its stance towards the CCP / PRC and in the last six months has given NZ businesses warnings to diversify their markets away from China. We do know that Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, has been trying to place the $20 billion defence upgrades on the back burner because of his COVID-19 spending. From memory he is one of Uncle Helen's acolytes so isn't defence friendly. Given their history and ideological bias, I am like you not optimistic but I think (hope) that their hand will be forced in this by public opinion and our FVEY partners.
The result of any such invasion of the Ukraine would surely be disastrous for Russia, win or lose against Nato? that conflict would mean trade sanctions against Russia too and a much weaker Russian military.

China then might see a weakened Russia as an opportunity like they did with Veitnam after US and allied forces left.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The result of any such invasion of the Ukraine would surely be disastrous for Russia, win or lose against Nato? that conflict would mean trade sanctions against Russia too and a much weaker Russian military.
Ah but would it? At present the West is all talk and bluster and stuff all else. What are sanctions going to do? They're not much better than a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket. To be brutally honest, have they stopped Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela etc., from misbehaving? No and the people that have been hurt are the average fulla and fullahess on the street trying to put a roof over their head and food in their and their children's bellies. Sanctions imposed by the UN and the West are just a tool to help the pollies look good and look like they are doing something. Keeps the masses happy.

It would be a mistake to presume that Russia would be weakened. Napoleon and Hitler presumed much about their own capabilities and those of Russia and it didn't work out to well for them. It's like hunting a wild porker with a knife; you don't assume anything until its stopped squealing and is devoid of all life signs.
China then might see a weakened Russia as an opportunity like they did with Veitnam after US and allied forces left.
That they may, but the last time they tried anything with Russia they got taught a nasty lesson. The Soviets didn't play tiddly winks with their erstwhile socialist fraternal comrades.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
No and the people that have been hurt are the average fulla and fullahess on the street trying to put a roof over their head and food in their and their children's bellies.
Indeed. When Iraqi children were dying in hospitals because of a lack of equipment which were seen as dual purpose; the Baathists were still maintaining their lifestyle. Even pencils were banned from being imported by Iraq.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I wouldn't think China and Russia are best of freinds. given that China also STILL has historic claims to parts of Russia too.State owned Chinese media in recent years has made statements to that fact about Vladivostoc.

They haven't honored sovereign rites of India and Tibet and others , Russia must know its only a matter of time, nuclear power or not.
China can push around its neighbours except for Russia. The Russian nuclear force dwarfs China’s arsenal and Putin wouldn’t hesitate to use his if China threatened Russia. NK could also cause China some serious grief if relations go off the rails. However this is all unlikely for now at least.
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
China can push around its neighbours except for Russia. The Russian nuclear force dwarfs China’s arsenal and Putin wouldn’t hesitate to use his if China threatened Russia. NK could also cause China some serious grief if relations go off the rails. However this is all unlikely for now at least.
Does Nato itself have sufficient forces to handle Russia, or have defence cuts affected thiers too?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Does Nato itself have sufficient forces to handle Russia, or have defence cuts affected thiers too?
Probably political resolve is a bigger problem for NATO than military resources, at least wrt Ukraine. Any Russian aggression towards Poland and the Baltic states is a different matter. Stuff would definitely hit the fan.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Can leopards change their spots ?, Dr Wayne Mapp has a moment in this Line of Defence article.

Does New Zealand spend enough on Defence? - Defsec
I have had to have a think before I replied to this post. Wayno hasn't really changed his spots. He's still advocating for no real increase in defence spending or capability. It's still a like for like; no more, no less. He fails to mention that the NATO requirement is for 2% of GDP to be spent on defence each year. For some reason that apparently has slipped his mind. He still thinks that annual defence expenditure of ~1% GDP is perfectly acceptable and that we only move to 1.5% GDP when we have large expensive equipment to procure.

We have to forget about % GDP for defence expenditure and just appropriate NZDF the funding it requires to be a viable and credible defence force that is able to perform the policy taskings required of by the NZG and expected of it by the people of NZ. If it requires a large cash injection over the next 15 years then that has to happen. From memory the average annual NZ Defence budget has been around the $2.8 - 3.0 billion mark. Doubling it would take it to $5.6 - 6.0 billion per annum and the country can afford that quite easily. Our current govt debt to GDP is ~38% and is forecast to hit ~41% with a return to surpluses in 2023/24. The debt to GDP should have fallen to 30% by then as well. 30% is a very respectable figure.
 

ddxx

Active Member
Personally, I think the lack of close collaboration between AU and NZ when it comes to both procurement and sustainment of assets is to the cost of both nations.

Consider the P-8 as an example, why the heck didn’t our two countries bundle orders for a reduced unit price? And then, work to establish a supranational sustainment deal?

Volume almost always gains savings.

And when it comes to Australia and New Zealand you’d be hard pressed to find any other two sovereign nations in the world with such a close relationship.

We’re all shooting ourselves in the foot in not exploiting that for mutual gain - and not just in the case of Defence.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Personally, I think the lack of close collaboration between AU and NZ when it comes to bot,h procurement and sustainment of assets is to the cost of both nations.

Consider the P-8 as an example, why the heck didn’t our two countries bundle orders for a reduced unit price? And then, work to establish a supranational sustainment deal?

Volume almost always gains savings.

And when it comes to Australia and New Zealand you’d be hard pressed to find any other two sovereign nations in the world with such a close relationship.

We’re all shooting ourselves in the foot in not exploiting that for mutual gain - and not just in the case of Defence.
Politics mainly, from the NZ side and usually the NZ Labour Party when it's in govt. In 2003, IIRC, the opportunity arose for NZ to participate in the RAAF C-130J acquisition which would've made sense and saved as a lot of treasure. But Helen Clarke refused to because she was on her anti Australian drive at the time. She dislikes Australians as much as she dislikes Americans.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There's also a little wariness on the Aust side - NZ did pretty well out of the ANZAC program and that is remembered. We'd probably get over it, in time - but not if they win too many games of cricket.
 

Kiwigov

Member
In the late 1960's the Aussies were reportedly pushing for NZ to buy (Aussie-produced) Mirage IIIs; consensus of experience is we did much better buying A-4Ks (and then bought the RAN A-4s in the mid-1980s). That said, reasonable view is that NZ would have been better buying a share of Australia's Leopard tank order rather than the M-41s. Certainly agree NZ would have been far wiser to buy new C-130Js with Aust back in the early 2000s, rather than the bespoke, risky and protracted C-130H update.
Thankfully NZ will have increased commonality with the RAAF in respect of the Poseidons and Super Hercs, but from the looks of things they will be the only such common platforms once RAAF retires the MRH-90s
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
In the late 1960's the Aussies were reportedly pushing for NZ to buy (Aussie-produced) Mirage IIIs; consensus of experience is we did much better buying A-4Ks (and then bought the RAN A-4s in the mid-1980s). That said, reasonable view is that NZ would have been better buying a share of Australia's Leopard tank order rather than the M-41s. Certainly agree NZ would have been far wiser to buy new C-130Js with Aust back in the early 2000s, rather than the bespoke, risky and protracted C-130H update.
Thankfully NZ will have increased commonality with the RAAF in respect of the Poseidons and Super Hercs, but from the looks of things they will be the only such common platforms once RAAF retires the MRH-90s
Didnt we get the m41's in the early 60's and australia get the leopards mid 70's?
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
Didnt we get the m41's in the early 60's and australia get the leopards mid 70's?
From my old and decrepit memory bank, the answer is yes you are right about this. and the M41's were second hand at the time and not new as were the extra mk5 Centurions we got in the 60's to add to the 3 Mk3's we already had that were procured as training tanks, so that our guys could be used in pom Centurions in Korea. I don't know if that ever happened.
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
Certainly agree NZ would have been far wiser to buy new C-130Js with Aust back in the early 2000s, rather than the bespoke, risky and protracted C-130H update.
That was the original plan, the NZ government had even purchased options on the C130J back in the 1990's and it will be no surprise as to who stopped that happening. there was even talk before the change in government at that time of increasing the number to 8 to make up for the loss of the Andovers.
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
In the late 1960's the Aussies were reportedly pushing for NZ to buy (Aussie-produced) Mirage IIIs; consensus of experience is we did much better buying A-4Ks (and then bought the RAN A-4s in the mid-1980s). That said, reasonable view is that NZ would have been better buying a share of Australia's Leopard tank order rather than the M-41s. Certainly agree NZ would have been far wiser to buy new C-130Js with Aust back in the early 2000s, rather than the bespoke, risky and protracted C-130H update.
Thankfully NZ will have increased commonality with the RAAF in respect of the Poseidons and Super Hercs, but from the looks of things they will be the only such common platforms once RAAF retires the MRH-90s

I reckon we should grab those naval versions as a replacement for our Seasprites just as we bought those of the aussies. Mates rates.☺Providing they aren't too knackered.
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
My question too.

The aircraft allocated to Navy out of the joint Army/RAN pool are all the same utility configuration to the best of my knowledge.

With one exception, the Navy MRH90s are fitted with four flotation kits.
Ah, I thought they'd had more modifications for naval use than that.? Nevermind, still they would be fairly new and seeing we already have NH90 and not having issue with them...
 

south

Well-Known Member
Personally, I think the lack of close collaboration between AU and NZ when it comes to both procurement and sustainment of assets is to the cost of both nations.

Consider the P-8 as an example, why the heck didn’t our two countries bundle orders for a reduced unit price? And then, work to establish a supranational sustainment deal?

Volume almost always gains savings.

And when it comes to Australia and New Zealand you’d be hard pressed to find any other two sovereign nations in the world with such a close relationship.

We’re all shooting ourselves in the foot in not exploiting that for mutual gain - and not just in the case of Defence.
To be honest I don’t see how the RNZAF would gain much. The cost of the aircraft will be the cost of the aircraft. The cost of the spares will be the cost of the spares. Its probable you could have a more efficient package without having to double up on widget A, and you may get some savings as a result but it’s not likely to be huge when compared to whole program costs.

I imagine where there could be greater value would be shifting training to a common place with Australia and achieving greater efficiency. This could achieve a higher operational output from the RNZAF fleet, and may require less training infrastructure and personnel in NZ, but would the government actually accept this offshoring? What is the cost of dislocating people overseas for the training period (travel, accomodation, allowances?) Maybe it could allow the RNZAF to dispense of a simulator (for example) but does this counter the negatives to not having one available in NZ?

The other areas that spring to mind would be staffing (HQ roles) and maybe things like EW programming.
 
Last edited:
Top