NZDF General discussion thread

[Rob c]

But I don’t think Australia did any kicking & screaming in defence of NZ capability.

From my memory, there was an expression of disapproval through diplomatic channels, but thee was no public chest bashing or flag waving, due to the relationship between our two countries
Helen Clark was as close as you get to a dictatorial PM as you get in NZ and it always was her way or the highway with the cabinet ministers

 

[Simon Ewing Jarvie]

Some observations relating to Defence Minister Henare's latest trip and hisbother recent comments:

• It is one of the last defences of a politician who is weak to attempt to sound tough by using expletives. On Stuff.co.nz today: “I've always been clear that, because of bloody Op Protect, we've got to regenerate our workforce, and they've come through something similar where their people haven't been able to be deployed because of Covid-19,” Henare said. He has had nearly 2 years to find a solution to the NZDF being used as handbag checkers and security guards at MIQ. CDF briefed him on the consequences for combat power degradation in mid-2021. (See my earlier posts)
• Does he realise that the NZ Army instructors at the Black Rock facility in Fiji are training RFMF peacekeepers on how to use Russian weapons and equipment that were supplied to them in 2016?
• SecDef briefed me on their decision to pause the SOPV acquisition project. Yep, that's probably how it rolled!

I can almost live with an incompetent minister given the choices available. But add straight out F@#÷ B$%/ and I draw the line

I would have hyperlinked all these but my tablet has been possessed and deletes the draft if I go to another window!

 

[spoz]

It’s not for Australia to tell NZ how to conduct its defence affairs, people. Kiwis are supposed to be a bunch of adults who can, theoretically at least, manage their own affairs. If they can’t work out what being an adult in the real world means, that is their problem, not Australia’s. And I’m sure they would be more than a little annoyed if we tried to tell them what to do from this side of the Tasman. We are entitled to say “we’re not impressed by the current direction of your policies”, but no more. And if that’s ignored, it is on the head of every Kiwi who didn’t stand up against those policies, should they prove ill advised.

 

[Wombat000]

It’s not for Australia to tell NZ how to conduct its defence affairs, people. Kiwis are supposed to be a bunch of adults

ok.
it’s not for the US to tell Europe to pull their weight in NATO, after all Europe are adults.
Its not up to the US to be mindful of Canadian responsibilities, after all Canadians are adults.

I’ve never suggested subordinating NZ sovereignty.
Ive simply identified the glaring forest of trees that in a Aust-NZ theatre each independent adult nation will never be unaffected.

The naive disconnect mentality of Left Hand/Right Hand in the name of “independence“ will be utterly meaningless to the sad sack who is gifted the chalice of eventual Theatre Commander simply because a pretence of “independence” meant that half the inevitable team is a Right hand thread and the other is a feather duster.

Sure, each nation can adult in their own independent expeditionary adventures, but in the home turf theatre scenario neither have the luxury of independence from each other.

I think it’s about time the community finally woke up to this inevitable fact and started making it accountable, in an adulting kind of way. It should start by ratifying exactly what NZ would be expected to provide in a team fight?
- if they can be bothered?.

 

[John Fedup]

As someone residing in a country full of self serving pollies who minimize defence funding in order to enhance their electoral chances ignores the real problem, the voters. If a centralist party with a firm commitment towards national defence can’t get elected nothing will change until allies put the pressure on so voters feel some pain if they continue supporting defence deadbeats.

Unfortunately Canada no longer has a centralist party let alone one with a defence agenda. Even if we did, voters here will always opt for promises of new benefits.

 

[Wombat000]

Here’s a crazy notion:
what if in the Aust-NZ context it was realistically determined that NZDF capability actually really should have, for example, 4 frigates, or fast jet strike capability, to dovetail with ADF theatre ops?
would that be significant?.

well, we could alternatively instead just persist concluding that NZ are adults, they’ll persist doing whatever the hell minimal they feel they can cope with locally, and the strategic archipelago can just suck it and see?

 

[south]

Here’s a crazy notion:
what if in the Aust-NZ context it was realistically determined that NZDF capability actually really should have, for example, 4 frigates, or fast jet strike capability, to dovetail with ADF theatre ops?
would that be significant?.

well, we could alternatively instead just persist concluding that NZ are adults, they’ll persist doing whatever the hell minimal they feel they can cope with locally, and the strategic archipelago can just suck it and see?

Firstly, by whom? The AU Govt/ADF? Or the Government of NZ? Because you get very different answers for the two of them regarding the practicalities of effecting any change.

Secondly, what evidence do you have to show that there is not a level of displeasure being expressed behind closed doors, from the Aust Govt to the NZ govt, at the atrophied state of the NZDF? The fact that we are close allies makes it less likely that that we would air such a grievance? I haven’t seen any evidence out there either way, and in the absence of such it is all speculation.

 

[Wombat000]

…….NZ sovereignty.
interesting concept & food for pondering.
in a peaceful ordered world voices of reason are listened to, and opportunism are sometimes bypassed or deferred.

NZ atrophied it’s effector influence In anything other than it’s bark.
In a brutal context, it actually exists on the good will of the remaining world order and the effectors of its mates.

ergo, what actually is NZ independence today?
i suggest that under actual pressure NZ has no independence.
its fortunes are utterly dependent in that situation on the good will and successes of its mates.
other than benign surrender to the pressure, NZ has negligible freedom of definitive action against anything other than its own peer.

the same can be said of Australia.
but Australia is more influential because it’s far more capable.
the sustainability of Australian independence is more tangible, even perhaps ACTUALLY tangible…
…..and Australia has big mates.

those who voice of NZ independence adulting are either referring to the local practices of farming of sheep or fail to grasp its strategic smoke and mirrors game. There is currently no genuine independence for adults in NZ outside the present symbiotic environment.

by strategic indifference Australia has overseen this contracture in capability.

 

[Wombat000]

Firstly, by whom? The AU Govt/ADF? Or the Government of NZ? Because you get very different answers for the two of them regarding the practicalities of effecting any change.

Secondly, what evidence do you have to show that there is not a level of displeasure being expressed behind closed doors, from the Aust Govt to the NZ govt, at the atrophied state of the NZDF? The fact that we are close allies makes it less likely that that we would air such a grievance? I haven’t seen any evidence out there either way, and in the absence of such it is all speculation.

it would need to be a consensus of requirement identified by both parties, dovetailing capability planning as best as possible in concert with the other
…… seriously, excepting independent expeditionary actions, both Aust and NZ will be the gloves of the same inevitable fighter.
there actually is no military independence fantasy.

the same conceptual hurdle could be said of defining national responsibilities of NATO, or any other security capability pact.
just cos it’s not currently done, doesn’t imply it shouldn’t or couldn’t be done.
infact it’s overdue.

 

[Todjaeger]

it would need to be a consensus of requirement identified by both parties
…… seriously, excepting independent expeditionary actions, both Aust and NZ will be the gloves of the same inevitable fighter.
there actually is no military independence fantasy.

the same conceptual hurdle could be said of defining national responsibilities of NATO, or any other security capability pact.
just cos it’s not currently done, doesn’t imply it shouldn’t or couldn’t be done.
infact it’s overdue.

You seem to be assuming that some or all of the above is not either already happening, or has happened. Whilst possible, IMO it would be far more likely that the above, or at least concerns about the above, would be raised in gov't to gov't which occur behind closed doors.

 

[Wombat000]

I absolutely hope so, but I doubt it.
identification of the obvious rather than excusing the current would be a massive step.

it would need to result in an actioning mindset of further relevance than the administration of the North and South Island, regional HADR and flag waving visits.

 

[Gracie1234]

It looks like our Minister is looking for a free lunch from this quote after stating he wanted to talk about AUKUS.
'We're not in the nuclear submarine game, but I'd love to explore what technology opportunities might present themselves to New Zealand, because if we don't have that conversation, now, we can't do the planning for it when it happens, '
Not quite sure how this lines up with the SOPV deferral, even the Greens would have supported that one.

 

[recce.k1]

Here’s a crazy notion:
what if in the Aust-NZ context it was realistically determined that NZDF capability actually really should have, for example, 4 frigates, or fast jet strike capability, to dovetail with ADF theatre ops?
would that be significant?.

well, we could alternatively instead just persist concluding that NZ are adults, they’ll persist doing whatever the hell minimal they feel they can cope with locally, and the strategic archipelago can just suck it and see?

I think what you are advocating for is to step up A-NZ's "Closer Defence Relations" to a higher level, specifically addressing combat equipment and force structure.

I think it could be argued (politically) that this could be a timely initiative (because of current events in Europe and the wider Indo-Pacific - all of which has a global impact including on A-NZ).

A-NZ "Closer Defence Relations" was an important initiative some 30 years ago in a post Cold War setting (and with particular emphasis on co-operation to stabalise the Pacific).

But a lot has changed since then, as a result it is timely to jointly examine the new "threats" of today (into the medium and longer term), particularly with a rising power which is actually seeking opportunities (and investments) to gain and hold influence over this medium and longer term in A-NZ's "neighborhood".

NZ defence assessments and policy positions always emphasise Australia's strategic importance to NZ, and that helping Australia militarily is of high priority ... but today this can no longer be done credibly (from a NZ perspective with its reduced combat capabilities).

Your example of "4 Frigates and fast jet strike" is the sort of interoperable force structure that needs to be jointly discussed and addressed (as well as other capabilities), because current NZ pollie-talk of "hey we are investing in new C-130J's and (just the four) P-8A's", whilst welcomed and important, is ... Clearly Not Enough (nor realistic, moving forward into an unstable future)!

 

[ngatimozart]

Wombat,

It occurred over two decades ago, but my recollection is that not many people survived challenging Ms Clark on anything (witness the sad case of David Dickens, then director of the Wellington think-tank the Centre for Strategic Studies, who opposed her on the F-16 deal. He lost his job and was labelled a 'National Party Hack' for expressing his views). Australia tried fairly hard to get NZG to change its mind on defence policy, but Clark wouldn't hear any of it. It wasn't just Labour though, National had been running things down seriously for nearly a decade (while pretending to field a 'balanced force' - by the time Labour got in, something had to give (and that wasn't going to be an increase in the defence budget, hence the major capability loss).
----
The news regarding Peeni Henare gets worse: in addition to talks with Peter Dutton, he is also giving a speech to the Australian War College and participating in a roundtable discussion at ASPI. That should be hilarious. Cheekily, I'm wondering if the real reason he is 'on tour' is that if he shows his face at the MoD after the SOPV & MIQ-manning debacles, someone is likely to toss him from a high-storey window.

Henare quote for today: "I'm strictly focused on defence" (link)

Throwing someone out of a window is called defenestration. It works best when said window is really high off the ground. The 10th or 11th floor of the Freyberg Building in Wellington would work.

I read the article this morning whilst eating my breakfast. That was a stupid idea. Ruined a perfectly good mug of strong black tea.

 

[JulioCompactus]

It looks like our Minister is looking for a free lunch from this quote after stating he wanted to talk about AUKUS.
'We're not in the nuclear submarine game, but I'd love to explore what technology opportunities might present themselves to New Zealand, because if we don't have that conversation, now, we can't do the planning for it when it happens, '
Not quite sure how this lines up with the SOPV deferral, even the Greens would have supported that one.

I think the USA has already made it clear there is no role for NZ in AUKUS.

United States pushes back on New Zealand and allies' hopes of joining AUKUS

One of America's most senior military commanders dismisses suggestions the AUKUS security partnership could soon be expanded to include other allies such as New Zealand or Japan.

www.abc.net.au

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think the USA has already made it clear there is no role for NZ in AUKUS.

It's not really the relevant space for them. Not that the US doesn't want anything to do with them. Its not five eyes, its not the UN, its not NATO.

From Australia's side, Australia would be more than happy to entertain pretty much *ANY* defence proposal from NZ. If NZ wanted to co-man submarines, operate F-35's, joint construction of vehicles or naval units. Joint forward basing etc. It would be hard to for see except for very specific multinational agreements like AUKUS projects that would exclude any national other than those specifically involved (like nuclear reactor technology).

Australia would expect strong support for sensible regional action by NZ. Like Timor. We would certainly expect to jointly coordinate responses and not act independently, even in HDAR or peace operations. Again at least some coordination of exercises and practice of integration.

But its completely up to NZ. Australia isn't fending off any NZ proposal.

Australia on the other hand has been pushing for a long time. We wanted in on nuclear submarines, Nuclear weapons, F-35, F-22, F-111, BMD, hypersonics, AI, sub combat systems, torpedo development, US marine basing, US base investment. Some of these are knocked back. The US and the UK subverted Australia gaining its own independent nuclear weapon capability (for good reasons). F-22 was also refused (for good reasons), other items are greenlit after lots of wrangling.

The relationship AU has with NZ is different. I can't think of a single case of NZ wanting in on something defence related and AU saying, no.

 

[Gibbo]

Throwing someone out of a window is called defenestration. It works best when said window is really high off the ground. The 10th or 11th floor of the Freyberg Building in Wellington would work.

I read the article this morning whilst eating my breakfast. That was a stupid idea. Ruined a perfectly good mug of strong black tea.

"I’m strictly focused on defence"... so Minister, which defence would that be? Perhaps it's de fence you've spent the last 2 years sitting on? Must be getting awfully uncomfortable... it might rip you a 2nd...., and then you're meeting Voldemort Dutton... geez he really might rip you a 3rd.... oh dear I might get sent to the naughty corner now, best I stop there!

 

[ngatimozart]

"I’m strictly focused on defence"... so Minister, which defence would that be? Perhaps it's de fence you've spent the last 2 years sitting on? Must be getting awfully uncomfortable... it might rip you a 2nd...., and then you're meeting Voldemort Dutton... geez he really might rip you a 3rd.... oh dear I might get sent to the naughty corner now, best I stop there!

It won't be me sending you to the naughty corner. If I did, I'd have to send myself as well.

 

[JulioCompactus]

It's not really the relevant space for them. Not that the US doesn't want anything to do with them. Its not five eyes, its not the UN, its not NATO.

From Australia's side, Australia would be more than happy to entertain pretty much *ANY* defence proposal from NZ. If NZ wanted to co-man submarines, operate F-35's, joint construction of vehicles or naval units. Joint forward basing etc. It would be hard to for see except for very specific multinational agreements like AUKUS projects that would exclude any national other than those specifically involved (like nuclear reactor technology).

Australia would expect strong support for sensible regional action by NZ. Like Timor. We would certainly expect to jointly coordinate responses and not act independently, even in HDAR or peace operations. Again at least some coordination of exercises and practice of integration.

But its completely up to NZ. Australia isn't fending off any NZ proposal.

Australia on the other hand has been pushing for a long time. We wanted in on nuclear submarines, Nuclear weapons, F-35, F-22, F-111, BMD, hypersonics, AI, sub combat systems, torpedo development, US marine basing, US base investment. Some of these are knocked back. The US and the UK subverted Australia gaining its own independent nuclear weapon capability (for good reasons). F-22 was also refused (for good reasons), other items are greenlit after lots of wrangling.

The relationship AU has with NZ is different. I can't think of a single case of NZ wanting in on something defence related and AU saying, no.

Agreed Australia would be open to discussing with NZ any serious proposal to jointly develop/acquire/sustain capabilities on a case by case basis (not that I can think of any impending opportunities off the top of my head) but that doesn't explain why the NZ DEF MIN thinks adding NZ to AUKUS is a done deal "when it happens". Assuming oc that the quote attributed to him above is accurate.

 

[ddxx]

I think there couldn’t be a better time to build on the work of CDR and jointly evolve it into a stronger, more comprehensive agreement.

There’s no doubt there would be considerable benefits through economies of scale alone.

The ADF and NZDF working under a common third banner of the ANZDF? The Chiefs of both forces would additionally be Joint Chiefs of the ANZDF?

Joint procurement, joint sustainment, joint crewing and a joint commitment to maintain a minimum level of defence and security expenditure.

If the heavy weights of the EU made up of 27 nations can push for a United force as a legitimate direction - surely AU and NZ can make it happen.