NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

NZ looking at a role in a 2nd pillar membership of AUKUS.

New Zealand flags AUKUS interest, China raises concern | The Canberra Times | Canberra, ACT

I had a feeling something was in the wind on this when AUKUS first came out in public and the NZ high commissioner in Canberra said favourable things about NZ Involvement in non-nuke technology.

This also explains politicians, former PMs/academics getting their retaliation in statements on AUKUS out first.

Pillar II is discussed in this CFR article.

The Delayed Promise of Pillar II
The security pact, which has continued to ruffle international feathers since September 2021 when it was first announced, encompasses two lines of effort. Pillar I: submarines, both nuclear and conventionally armed—which is most widely featured in news coverage—and Pillar II: other advanced military capabilities such as AI-enabled and autonomous capabilities (in particular, robotic and autonomous undersea systems), quantum computing projects on precision, navigation, and timing (PNT), cyber, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic technology, electronic warfare, and other technological innovation and information-sharing efforts.

The AUKUS Alliance Has a Lot More to Offer Than Submarines

However, Pillar II of the AUKUS—which promises cooperation on AI, hypersonics, quantum computing and other advanced technologies—could significantly strengthen the U.S. position in the Asia Pacific.

www.cfr.org

Can't read that Canberra Times article as it is pay-walled, but presumably it's similar to this NZ article (judging by the quotes)?

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

As for "This also explains politicians, former PMs/academics getting their retaliation in statements on AUKUS out first. " ... fully agree. Mind you in this Guardian article DefMin Andrew Little seems to be talking a lot "tougher" than his previous counterparts (and former NZ PM's, who are also from the Paul Keating/post Cold War era).

Little said foreign or local voices against the deal would not be a factor in potential membership. “We as a country and the leaders of the day have to make an assessment about our long-term best interests and what is a rapidly changing world and a rapidly changing region.”

New Zealand may join Aukus pact’s non-nuclear component

Defence minister says government ‘willing to explore’ participating in ‘pillar two’ of defence deal founded by Australia, UK and US

www.theguardian.com

 

[Stuart M]

My view is, i do not see us being invited to be part of the club without a commitment to lift our capability and prioritise the investment required. As a note to those who say funding is not there, the govt is spending nearly $1B a week more than was spent 7 years ago.
Not wanting to get into politics, it is always a question of what do we want to do.
I attending the webinar today, nothing particular new there. Keen on others thoughts.

Indeed, I think there will be a few hints on NZs defence spending, but more pertinently I think there will also be heavy hints that the quid pro quo for this will be capability and capacity; something along the lines of "if NZ wants this, this is what Australia is doing.... what are you doing?"

 

[Stuart M]

Pillar II is discussed in this CFR article.

The AUKUS Alliance Has a Lot More to Offer Than Submarines

However, Pillar II of the AUKUS—which promises cooperation on AI, hypersonics, quantum computing and other advanced technologies—could significantly strengthen the U.S. position in the Asia Pacific.

www.cfr.org

Can't read that Canberra Times article as it is pay-walled, but presumably it's similar to this NZ article (judging by the quotes)?

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

As for "This also explains politicians, former PMs/academics getting their retaliation in statements on AUKUS out first. " ... fully agree. Mind you in this Guardian article DefMin Andrew Little seems to be talking a lot "tougher" than his previous counterparts (and former NZ PM's, who are also from the Paul Keating/post Cold War era).

New Zealand may join Aukus pact’s non-nuclear component

Defence minister says government ‘willing to explore’ participating in ‘pillar two’ of defence deal founded by Australia, UK and US

www.theguardian.com

None of the Piller 2 items are cheap, its research as well as 'deliverables' including (counter) hypersonics (NZ does have rocket scientists) and would be of distinct value to NZ. The real question is will NZ want to pull its weight as Australia is?

 

[Gracie1234]

Most of the modern technologies that seem to be invested in require a lot of capability in the Information Technology field. Analysing data from sensors, recommending the correct response and then controlling the response. This will require a major capability uplift and significant investment in people to build and sustain. This is also a very competitive marketplace for talent globally.
During the webinar yesterday I did not catch any timeframes, I know the Minister as stated he wants the deliverables quicker. Any ideas of dates?
Stuff news has an article raising the question of whether our anti-nuclear stance is still relevant. For me it is not. The world requires energy to decarbonise and this is a reliable safe source. Not sure we need it at the moment, we might be able to skip to Fusion.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[Stuart M]

Most of the modern technologies that seem to be invested in require a lot of capability in the Information Technology field. Analysing data from sensors, recommending the correct response and then controlling the response. This will require a major capability uplift and significant investment in people to build and sustain. This is also a very competitive marketplace for talent globally.
snip

All true.. but for NZ there is also the question of having the capability and capacity to act on information. And this also costs money to attract and retain talent, something which in true Kiwi style NZ does not want to pay for.

From 2022
More than 30 per cent of soldiers unhappy with wages, as attrition diminishes Defence Force | Stuff.co.nz

The thing is, I cannot remember a time when this sort of headline has not been in the news at some point in the last 30 years.
If NZ want in on part 2 of AUKUS there has to be distinct shift in attitudes, and NZ needs to stop expecting Ferraris for the price of a 2nd hand Corolla.

 

[Stuart M]

This is interesting

New Zealand defence minister says military needs more resources amid growing challenges

New Zealand's military will require big investment as it faces new challenges and greater expectations from regional allies, the country’s new defence minister, Andrew Little, said Thursday.

www.reuters.com

WELLINGTON, March 30 (Reuters) - New Zealand's military will require big investment as it faces new challenges and greater expectations from regional allies, the country’s new defence minister, Andrew Little, said Thursday.

“I think when you look at the geostrategic situation we have in the Pacific at the moment, I think the longer-term challenge is that our partners and neighbours will say to us: ‘we expect more’,” Little told Reuters in an interview.

He said that although New Zealand had made some investments already, the government needed to consider more, especially for the country's navy.

There now appears to be acceptance at ministerial level that change is required in NZ defence posture, what form that takes remains to be seen.

There is also the beginnings of resistance to this, both from retired politicians but also from 'the usual suspects' now to be found on social media.
I will predict at this point that resistance to increased defence spending and capability and capacity will be very similar to what was seen in the 70s and 80s and probably including some of the players from that period,: Minto, Helen Clark etc. I also predict that there will also be opposition to it from certain factions on the centre right, as represented by the likes of Key, Brownlee, Bolger and others.

Interesting times.

 

[ngatimozart]

None of the Piller 2 items are cheap, its research as well as 'deliverables' including (counter) hypersonics (NZ does have rocket scientists) and would be of distinct value to NZ. The real question is will NZ want to pull its weight as Australia is?

You are right, we do have rocket scientists here and Rocket Lab design and build CubeSats in Auckland. The University of Canterbury have a rocketry research program and launches test rockets from what was the old RNZAF bombing range at Birdlings Flat on Te Waihora - Lake Ellesmere.

The NZCAA have certified the Dawn Aerospace Aurora II rocket powered spaceplane to fly out f NZ civil airports. Certified and Ready for Rocket-Powered Flight — Dawn Aerospace. I am unsure where they will be flying from, but they were originally going to fly out of Oamaru airport. They are based here in Christchurch. The following videos were taken from their press kit which also has plenty of still photos.

We do have the people, knowledge and abilities to work in a broad range of technologies. For example we have international class composite materials design and manufacturing facilities here. All of Team NZ composite Americas Cup boats were designed and manufactured here, and Team NZ is well known for its innovations in that area. Sir Richard Taylor's company in Dunedin does all the screen graphics for the TV coverage of the US PGA golf broadcasts, and they do it in real time from Dunedin. TBH we are probably ahead of the Australians in the composite materials field, including their application. We are definitely ahead of Australia in the space arena.

As you say, out governments won't devote sufficient resources to the R&D of these and other technologies. They're an export earner but the bureaucrats and pollies can't get there collective heads around it. Even our gaming studios are now going offshore because they aren't getting the support here and gaming is a multibillion dollar business in anyones language.

 

[Stuart M]

Snip

As you say, out governments won't devote sufficient resources to the R&D of these and other technologies. They're an export earner but the bureaucrats and pollies can't get there collective heads around it. Even our gaming studios are now going offshore because they aren't getting the support here and gaming is a multibillion dollar business in anyones language.

And that's it, we have the talent and Little is making noises about doing more, but he also intimates that it's not just his decision.
I feel that, like Australia and it's SSNs, NZ must have long term bipartisan commitment from both political parties. But in NZ, with it's recent past of hostility to defence spending, there must also be broad social acceptance from the public, to get that the politicians must be open about why we must do this, how and also the opportunity costs.

We cannot go into this half arsed, the stakes are too high.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is interesting

New Zealand defence minister says military needs more resources amid growing challenges

New Zealand's military will require big investment as it faces new challenges and greater expectations from regional allies, the country’s new defence minister, Andrew Little, said Thursday.

www.reuters.com

There now appears to be acceptance at ministerial level that change is required in NZ defence posture, what form that takes remains to be seen.

There is also the beginnings of resistance to this, both from retired politicians but also from 'the usual suspects' now to be found on social media.
I will predict at this point that resistance to increased defence spending and capability and capacity will be very similar to what was seen in the 70s and 80s and probably including some of the players from that period,: Minto, Helen Clark etc. I also predict that there will also be opposition to it from certain factions on the centre right, as represented by the likes of Key, Brownlee, Bolger and others.

Interesting times.

A Lucy Cramer story and I hope that she still lurks on here. The two big problems will be Minister Of Finance Robertson and Treasury. Treasury will fight tooth and nail against any major increase in defence funding because they see defence as wasted money. After all they fought for 40 years to have the ACF disbanded.

Key & Brownlee are to enamoured with the CCP/PRC and won't change. Bolger was just plain stingy. Minto, Helen Clark et al., will whinge anyway, no matter what. The other usual suspects will whinge because they can and don't know any better. hat we really lack is any bipartisan agreement on defence and security. That went out the window in 1958 when the Labour Party adopted its pacificist / anti defence resolution. During the 1960s the National govt under Holyoake refused to replace the RNZAF Vampires and Canberras with the F-4 Phantom which the RNZAF wanted. and we waited another decade for the arrival of the less capable A-4 Skyhawks. They and successive govts didn't replace the army's tanks or air defence capability and didn't spend much on the RNZN. Yes the army got the Scorpion light tank, but it wasn't a tank, more a light fast tracked reconnaissance vehicle. Interestingly enough Bolger had the same Parliamentary seat as Holyoake, King Country.

 

[Stuart M]

. hat we really lack is any bipartisan agreement on defence and security. Snip.

Well, we do, that agreement is to not spend money on the defence forces

 

[At lakes]

A Lucy Cramer story and I hope that she still lurks on here. The two big problems will be Minister Of Finance Robertson and Treasury. Treasury will fight tooth and nail against any major increase in defence funding because they see defence as wasted money. After all they fought for 40 years to have the ACF disbanded.

Key & Brownlee are to enamoured with the CCP/PRC and won't change. Bolger was just plain stingy. Minto, Helen Clark et al., will whinge anyway, no matter what. The other usual suspects will whinge because they can and don't know any better. hat we really lack is any bipartisan agreement on defence and security. That went out the window in 1958 when the Labour Party adopted its pacificist / anti defence resolution. During the 1960s the National govt under Holyoake refused to replace the RNZAF Vampires and Canberras with the F-4 Phantom which the RNZAF wanted. and we waited another decade for the arrival of the less capable A-4 Skyhawks. They and successive govts didn't replace the army's tanks or air defence capability and didn't spend much on the RNZN. Yes the army got the Scorpion light tank, but it wasn't a tank, more a light fast tracked reconnaissance vehicle. Interestingly enough Bolger had the same Parliamentary seat as Holyoake, King Country.

yes the army got the scorpion to replace M41 Walker Bulldog tanks. I remember reading at the time in some obsure document just to show how miserable they were with money they wanted to replace the v12 Jaguar engine with a diesel engine because it was cheaper. The poms arched up and said no take the motor its supplied with or we will go else where. As far as I am aware that idea with the diesel did not last very long

 

[Rob c]

Well, we do, that agreement is to not spend money on the defence forces

Yes, there was an agreement in the early Key years, between the major political parties not to debate Defence, probably to ensure that the public were kept in the dark and fed on sh--t so that the pollies could make sure no money was spent. The average Joe Bloggs will only react to what he is aware of and by staying silent the pollies achieved their aim, so that all the average Joe Bloggs is worried about is the cost of living and local problems. When I have spoken to people they are not anti defence, they simply know nothing about it, so it is not important to them
It is interesting that when Little was the leader of the opposition, he publicly stated that if he became the PM the twenty billion would be cut back and now the tune is changing.
What we need is a far better informed public, with enough information being supplied to counter the Hellen Clarks, Bulgers and Keys in the media who all have their personal, emotive agenda's

 

[John Fedup]

Yes, there was an agreement in the early Key years, between the major political parties not to debate Defence, probably to ensure that the public were kept in the dark and fed on sh--t so that the pollies could make sure no money was spent. The average Joe Bloggs will only react to what he is aware of and by staying silent the pollies achieved their aim, so that all the average Joe Bloggs is worried about is the cost of living and local problems. When I have spoken to people they are not anti defence, they simply know nothing about it, so it is not important to them
It is interesting that when Little was the leader of the opposition, he publicly stated that if he became the PM the twenty billion would be cut back and now the tune is changing.
What we need is a far better informed public, with enough information being supplied to counter the Hellen Clarks, Bulgers and Keys in the media who all have their personal, emotive agenda's

A better informed public, a hard hill to climb just like here in Canada. Social giveaways and other free stuff versus national defence, the former wins. Prepare for war but only when the invaders are pounding at the gate….somewhat way too late!

 

[Gibbo]

.... It is interesting that when Little was the leader of the opposition, he publicly stated that if he became the PM the twenty billion would be cut back and now the tune is changing.
What we need is a far better informed public, with enough information being supplied to counter the Hellen Clarks, Bolgers and Keys in the media who all have their personal, emotive agenda's

It was just an April fool's day joke but the joke's on them as they went a day early!

Seriously though, this rather interesting, but welcome, change of heart shows firstly that Little has actually got to understand how poorly resourced & fragile the NZDF is, and he's also no doubt also now better appraised of the security situation with China's Pacific push & Russian agression now playing out. It also openly suggests we are being asked to step-up which is completely understandable... and sounds like those calls for allies are starting to get louder...I suspect the SouPac island states are starting to make more noise too as they'll be pawns in any regional security contest as well as climate change.

It's impossible to say what a change of Govt might mean so I'm not too excited just yet... this is clearly just the start of trying to start turning the dialogue & public debate on Defence in a different direction... well argued it will stand on it's own merits.

Expanding on the Russian invasion on Ukraine...the value of that to much of the world is it highlights how international agreements & defence alliances play out and that no country can guarantee direct outside help but must drive their own defence... they might get all the kit they need but they can't guarantee they'll get foreign forces to directly assist due to the wider geo-political scenarios at play... Little (at least) maybe starting to grasp the implications for NZ's defence posture... we are likely to get foreign assistance if threatened but it may well not be as black & white as foreign forces racing to our aid. Mind you I still argue invasion isn't our biggest likely threat, that is economic blockade thru constraint of SLOC.

 

[Stuart M]

Yes, there was an agreement in the early Key years, between the major political parties not to debate Defence, probably to ensure that the public were kept in the dark and fed on sh--t so that the pollies could make sure no money was spent. The average Joe Bloggs will only react to what he is aware of and by staying silent the pollies achieved their aim, so that all the average Joe Bloggs is worried about is the cost of living and local problems. When I have spoken to people they are not anti defence, they simply know nothing about it, so it is not important to them
It is interesting that when Little was the leader of the opposition, he publicly stated that if he became the PM the twenty billion would be cut back and now the tune is changing.
What we need is a far better informed public, with enough information being supplied to counter the Hellen Clarks, Bulgers and Keys in the media who all have their personal, emotive agenda's

Well, the usual tune has changed, I'd suggest that certain politicians have worked out that there is now a threat to them that is not electoral, but has electoral effects, and one they cannot hide. I'd also suggest that it's dawned on them that the old arguments against defence spending, like distance, are just no longer applicable and quite obviously nonsense.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Defence Minister: 'Independence is not isolationism'

Unable to get around the paywall- they usually comedown 24 or so hours later.

Given the other Little article here it may be looking better for defence. Interesting considering how difficult Little was with the health sector which has similar pay/conditions/attrition/capability issues as defence and also requires billions of dollars investment to bring it up to where it should be.

 

[Gibbo]

Defence Minister: 'Independence is not isolationism'

Unable to get around the paywall- they usually comedown 24 or so hours later.

Given the other Little article here it may be looking better for defence. Interesting considering how difficult Little was with the health sector which has similar pay/conditions/attrition/capability issues as defence and also requires billions of dollars investment to bring it up to where it should be.

Wonder if it's the influence of the new PM and his thinking!?!

 

[Rob c]

A better informed public, a hard hill to climb just like here in Canada. Social giveaways and other free stuff versus national defence, the former wins. Prepare for war but only when the invaders are pounding at the gate….somewhat way too late!

yep, but if you don't start climbing you will never reach the top. There is some discussion taking place, which is a first step, we do need a lot more steps to take place.

 

[Stuart M]

Wonder if it's the influence of the new PM and his thinking!?!

Interesting subject to bring up in an apolitical forum, but from what I gather there was a wide-ranging discussion, there were arguments on both sides that were evenly balanced .. with perhaps some tending slightly more one way than the other.

 

[Rob c]

Mind you I still argue invasion isn't our biggest likely threat, that is economic blockade thru constraint of SLOC.

An economic blockade does not take away your sovereignty or freedom. painful yes, but not as disastrously destructive as other options.