NZDF General discussion thread

[steve33]

Totally agree,what soldiers look for is opportunity and the Ranger school would provide that and you could offer things like automatic pay increases for people that graduate.

And i think it would increase the performance of the battalion because people would see other soldiers in there section,platoon coming back from Ranger school with there Ranger Tab and more pay and that will encourage other people to do the same and with section and platoon leaders having qualified from ranger school they will be setting a higher example when they go back to there platoon and other people will be forced to improve there perfomance.

It will also bridge the gap between regular infantry and the SAS helping soldiers to try out for the SAS already equipped with a solid grounding in special forces training and tactics.

Unless we see the outbreak of WW3 we are never going to have a big army so we should aim to have a small elite army with the goal of producing the best light infantry in the world airbourne qualified who are capable of supporting special forces operations.

 

[Gibbo]

I would love to see the KIWI,s increase their chopper fleet by 4 more NH90,s.
the Navy by 1 more frigate and 2 more ASW helo,s, and the Army by 1 more inf bn.
Then i beleive they could contribute a hell of a lot more to their alliance with Australia. NZ is most definatly a regional power right now. Power is more than tanks and PGM,s, the NZ dollar, and economy is in pretty good shape compared to say the Solomans, PNG, Fiji, Vanuatu and even competitive to SE Asian economys. Dont forget that NZ has some very good friends, some have big sticks!

Yes agree that we are by default a major 'influence' in the regional - not a power so much!?!

Like the shopping list, but I'd add 5 additional AW109 spec'd for reco/light-attack; 3 more air transports (2 Hercs & 1 757) - then also complete all LTDP projects!

Oh well, dreams are free - even if military kit isn't!

 

[exported_kiwi]

Recce, as a fellow Kiwi, I think I can answer the question as to why NZ didn't acquire another ANZAC. This is because our government is an incredibly myopic and bludging bunch of gits who expect everyone else to do our dirty work for us.....God defend NZ, yep, but only because we can't, or won't do it for ourselves. Sorry folks, just a rant is all!

 

[exported_kiwi]

P.S; aren't the politicians supposed to reflect the will of the people and if so, aren't we, the people supposed to express our wishes in such a way as to leave our will as an unequivocal desire indelibly etched into the minds of those who think they control us, but in fact, we should control? I know this isn't a political forum and I apologise, but, enough's enough and something has to be done. I won't even live in NZ now, even though I pay tax to the coffers, because there's something inherently wrong with this poor excuse of a governments priorities.......sorry once again folks!

 

[NZjoeAverage]

I have been watching the forums for a while now and taken on board some of the messages and opinions (even changing my own opinions) and think that under a change of government a more radical approach is required, both to do more with the resources we have and refocus on NZ needs.
With economic constraints, manpower issues and public opinion being what they are, and based on the current short to medium term global environment the NZDF could easily be remodeled to look like this (and will offer some explanations why below)

Airforce - Disbanded
Bases - Hobsonville closed, Whenuapai, Ohakea and Woodbourne transferred to Army
Assets - C130, 757, NH90 and A109 transferred to Army, P3K to Coastguard, rest sold/disposed of
Manpower - Pilots and Engineers transferred as required - remaining offered Army/Coastguard roles

Navy - Disbanded
Bases - Devonport re-used as Coastguard headquarters
Assets - All except Project Protector and Manawanui sold/disposed of (Yes frigates and Seasprites sold)
Manpower - transferred to Coastguard

Army - Enhanced
Bases and Assets- As before
New Air Support Division (5xC130, 2x757, 8xNH90, 5xA109) spread between Ohakea and combined Military/Civilian airport Whenuapai
Manpower - increased to 3 full battalions, 1 high readiness infantry company and additional CTTAG based at Trentham

Coastguard - Created (Based on US - Military/Law enforcement model)
Bases - Devonport + Shared Whenuapai/Ohakea for air assets
Assets - Project Protector fleet + 2 new OPVs, IPVs armed to OPV spec, Manawanui (Dive Support), 6xP3K, 5 additional new A109
Manpower - as per Navy levels

Although there would be the expected initial negative public reaction to the loss of frigates and military history (as there was with the disbanding of the RNZAF strike wing) in time the public would come to appreciate a much more NZ focussed military and government funded coastguard. International fallout would be minimal and brief.

From an economic perspective NZ can't afford to own or properly maintain to an effective level a desired 3 frigate Navy. If this requirement was gone and the associated LTDP projects and longer term replacement of the ANZAC frigates also gone this frees a significant amount of defence funding.

With no real military "power" in the Airforce and frigate-less Navy it makes no sense to maintain those branches. In the above model all that is really done is replacing the frigates with OPVs and doubling the A109 order to replace the seasprites, the rest is just redeployment and re-branding (calling a spade a spade).

With reduced bureaucracy and more funds available this can be redirected to pay increases for front-line staff, this in conjunction with the redeployments of staff and elimination of the frigate staffing requirements can all aid in long term manpower increases to required levels.
Longer term the current LTDP projects can all be played out (except Frigate related and P3K weapons projects) as they are which ultimately reduces the major future costs beyond the LTDP to replacing fixed wing aircraft while almost all other equipment will be relatively new at that point.

The above structure is designed to meet the NZ needs of EEZ protection, Border protection, SAR, Disaster relief, Counter Terrorism, Peace Keeping. The current NZ volunteer coast guard can essentially be split in two with the higher end assets (boats, aircraft, maritime communications etc) becoming part of the new Military branch as second tier assets and the low end spinning off to focus on supporting local beach type SAR, surf lifesaving type work. Also the Police Maritime branch and Customs, Fisheries etc all could be rolled into the coastguard in the future as well to consolidate all "sea" related government services given it would have both military and law enforcement rights.

I look forward to the outcome of Nationals defence white paper which we should see by the end of 2009.

 

[Sea Toby]

I have been watching the forums for a while now and taken on board some of the messages and opinions (even changing my own opinions) and think that under a change of government a more radical approach is required, both to do more with the resources we have and refocus on NZ needs.
With economic constraints, manpower issues and public opinion being what they are, and based on the current short to medium term global environment the NZDF could easily be remodeled to look like this (and will offer some explanations why below)

Airforce - Disbanded
Bases - Hobsonville closed, Whenuapai, Ohakea and Woodbourne transferred to Army
Assets - C130, 757, NH90 and A109 transferred to Army, P3K to Coastguard, rest sold/disposed of
Manpower - Pilots and Engineers transferred as required - remaining offered Army/Coastguard roles

Navy - Disbanded
Bases - Devonport re-used as Coastguard headquarters
Assets - All except Project Protector and Manawanui sold/disposed of (Yes frigates and Seasprites sold)
Manpower - transferred to Coastguard

Army - Enhanced
Bases and Assets- As before
New Air Support Division (5xC130, 2x757, 8xNH90, 5xA109) spread between Ohakea and combined Military/Civilian airport Whenuapai
Manpower - increased to 3 full battalions, 1 high readiness infantry company and additional CTTAG based at Trentham

Coastguard - Created (Based on US - Military/Law enforcement model)
Bases - Devonport + Shared Whenuapai/Ohakea for air assets
Assets - Project Protector fleet + 2 new OPVs, IPVs armed to OPV spec, Manawanui (Dive Support), 6xP3K, 5 additional new A109
Manpower - as per Navy levels

Although there would be the expected initial negative public reaction to the loss of frigates and military history (as there was with the disbanding of the RNZAF strike wing) in time the public would come to appreciate a much more NZ focussed military and government funded coastguard. International fallout would be minimal and brief.

From an economic perspective NZ can't afford to own or properly maintain to an effective level a desired 3 frigate Navy. If this requirement was gone and the associated LTDP projects and longer term replacement of the ANZAC frigates also gone this frees a significant amount of defence funding.

With no real military "power" in the Airforce and frigate-less Navy it makes no sense to maintain those branches. In the above model all that is really done is replacing the frigates with OPVs and doubling the A109 order to replace the seasprites, the rest is just redeployment and re-branding (calling a spade a spade).

With reduced bureaucracy and more funds available this can be redirected to pay increases for front-line staff, this in conjunction with the redeployments of staff and elimination of the frigate staffing requirements can all aid in long term manpower increases to required levels.
Longer term the current LTDP projects can all be played out (except Frigate related and P3K weapons projects) as they are which ultimately reduces the major future costs beyond the LTDP to replacing fixed wing aircraft while almost all other equipment will be relatively new at that point.

The above structure is designed to meet the NZ needs of EEZ protection, Border protection, SAR, Disaster relief, Counter Terrorism, Peace Keeping. The current NZ volunteer coast guard can essentially be split in two with the higher end assets (boats, aircraft, maritime communications etc) becoming part of the new Military branch as second tier assets and the low end spinning off to focus on supporting local beach type SAR, surf lifesaving type work. Also the Police Maritime branch and Customs, Fisheries etc all could be rolled into the coastguard in the future as well to consolidate all "sea" related government services given it would have both military and law enforcement rights.

I look forward to the outcome of Nationals defence white paper which we should see by the end of 2009.

Awful idea. Canada eliminated the other services uniforms. After many years, the Canadians got tired of hearing their sailors didn't look like sailors, and their airmen didn't look like airmen. The best thing they did with their unified services is to bring back sailor and airmen uniforms, especially for morale, not to mention re-enlistments. Naval officers quit in mass because engineering isn't so important in the army as tactics. Pilots like their wings, submariners like their dolphins, etc. Best of all, not one red cent was saved by combining uniforms.

While its a great idea to have one defence force, ala a joint force, its best to keep the traditions of the navy and air force, including their uniforms, and their culture. Who is going to command a ship, a captain or a colonel, or a major. Who is going to fly a plane, a soldier or a pilot.

All you have accomplished is to eliminate frigates, something which might happen anyway when it time to pay off the frigates. Everything else remains the same except adding another battalion to the army. But you will have ended service pride, something worth much, much more.

 

[Lucasnz]

I have been watching the forums for a while now and taken on board some of the messages and opinions (even changing my own opinions) and think that under a change of government a more radical approach is required, both to do more with the resources we have and refocus on NZ needs.
With economic constraints, manpower issues and public opinion being what they are, and based on the current short to medium term global environment the NZDF could easily be remodeled to look like this (and will offer some explanations why below)

Airforce - Disbanded
Bases - Hobsonville closed, Whenuapai, Ohakea and Woodbourne transferred to Army
Assets - C130, 757, NH90 and A109 transferred to Army, P3K to Coastguard, rest sold/disposed of
Manpower - Pilots and Engineers transferred as required - remaining offered Army/Coastguard roles

Navy - Disbanded
Bases - Devonport re-used as Coastguard headquarters
Assets - All except Project Protector and Manawanui sold/disposed of (Yes frigates and Seasprites sold)
Manpower - transferred to Coastguard

Army - Enhanced
Bases and Assets- As before
New Air Support Division (5xC130, 2x757, 8xNH90, 5xA109) spread between Ohakea and combined Military/Civilian airport Whenuapai
Manpower - increased to 3 full battalions, 1 high readiness infantry company and additional CTTAG based at Trentham

Coastguard - Created (Based on US - Military/Law enforcement model)
Bases - Devonport + Shared Whenuapai/Ohakea for air assets
Assets - Project Protector fleet + 2 new OPVs, IPVs armed to OPV spec, Manawanui (Dive Support), 6xP3K, 5 additional new A109
Manpower - as per Navy levels

Although there would be the expected initial negative public reaction to the loss of frigates and military history (as there was with the disbanding of the RNZAF strike wing) in time the public would come to appreciate a much more NZ focussed military and government funded coastguard. International fallout would be minimal and brief.

From an economic perspective NZ can't afford to own or properly maintain to an effective level a desired 3 frigate Navy. If this requirement was gone and the associated LTDP projects and longer term replacement of the ANZAC frigates also gone this frees a significant amount of defence funding.

With no real military "power" in the Airforce and frigate-less Navy it makes no sense to maintain those branches. In the above model all that is really done is replacing the frigates with OPVs and doubling the A109 order to replace the seasprites, the rest is just redeployment and re-branding (calling a spade a spade).

With reduced bureaucracy and more funds available this can be redirected to pay increases for front-line staff, this in conjunction with the redeployments of staff and elimination of the frigate staffing requirements can all aid in long term manpower increases to required levels.
Longer term the current LTDP projects can all be played out (except Frigate related and P3K weapons projects) as they are which ultimately reduces the major future costs beyond the LTDP to replacing fixed wing aircraft while almost all other equipment will be relatively new at that point.

The above structure is designed to meet the NZ needs of EEZ protection, Border protection, SAR, Disaster relief, Counter Terrorism, Peace Keeping. The current NZ volunteer coast guard can essentially be split in two with the higher end assets (boats, aircraft, maritime communications etc) becoming part of the new Military branch as second tier assets and the low end spinning off to focus on supporting local beach type SAR, surf lifesaving type work. Also the Police Maritime branch and Customs, Fisheries etc all could be rolled into the coastguard in the future as well to consolidate all "sea" related government services given it would have both military and law enforcement rights.

I look forward to the outcome of Nationals defence white paper which we should see by the end of 2009.

I'm sorry, but this is very much the old Alliance party thinking, that even the 1999 Defence select committee didn't consider. Its short sighted and ignores the very important contribution that the frigates made to East Timor, Bouginville etc and else where not to mention the contribution of the airforce. Those roles could not have been performed by an OPV.

I finding it suprising that people keep saying that we don't need combat assets at sea (when were an Island nation) or in the air, all on the basis of cost, yet NZ was able to afford these assets even during the dark economic days of the 1970-80's, when Labour purchased more P-3, A-4 and the MB339.

Anyway could go on but I've got a plane to catch.

Cheers.

 

[mattyem]

In reply to NZJOEAVERAGE

Simply put, AWFUL IDEA

I dont know where to start, just in case you didnt know New Zealand has obligations to fill with the united nations and our allies, which just wouldn't function if we "disbanded" all of that in whiich you suggested!

Im a sailor and I know that running the navy as a coast gaurd simply wouldn't work, thats not our role. Especially with the MRV and the OPV's. Dont even get me started on the selling of the frigates and keeping protector. HAVE YOU HERD OF ALL THE PROBLEMS WE ARE ENCOUNTERING WITH PROTECTOR SO FAR, you want to sell proven vessels and replace them with problematic ones and then sell our only dive tender Manawanui???? WHERE IS THE LOGIC!

And I dont really see how just transfering everything to the army will save costs? The hardware is still here and still getting serviced only the money to do it will be going to the army account not the airforce. Another huge issue would be training! with every service currently set up to train specific people for specific roles, if we are to mix and disband things left right and centre it would be chaos.

"From an economic perspective NZ can't afford to own or properly maintain to an effective level a desired 3 frigate Navy" you obviously dont know about the upgrades these ships have gained and are about to recieve in their half life refit! "Properly maintain" Which aspect of the frigates are you refering to?? As an engineer in the navy, I am an operator and maintainer maybe I could fix it for you!!

How do you suggest we increase manpower in the Army! im sure the army has been trying to do that for years now, but you obviously have spoken to them about the way to do it properly, or should we just used all the sailors and airmen you just made redundant! im sure they would "love" that.

 

[mattyem]

I totally agree, Im looking foward to the next election in hope of national getting back in, though not the perfect group of people in power, at least they have more pride in our defence force than labour does!

And I will dare to say it, more pro american, which in terms of defence and military training and technology is a good thing!

 

[Stuart Mackey]

P.S; aren't the politicians supposed to reflect the will of the people and if so, aren't we, the people supposed to express our wishes in such a way as to leave our will as an unequivocal desire indelibly etched into the minds of those who think they control us, but in fact, we should control?snip

Ahh, but do the public know what they want? Most dont have the knowledge of the world and defence matters to have an informed opinion let alone make demands of our glorious leaders on the matter.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I have been watching the forums for a while now and taken on board some of the messages and opinions (even changing my own opinions) and think that under a change of government a more radical approach is required, both to do more with the resources we have and refocus on NZ needs.

What are NZ's needs, from a defence perspective?

With economic constraints,

What economic constraints? do you have details?

manpower issues

That is an issue, but not surprising with a lack of opportunities within a defence force that is so small.

and public opinion being what they are,

Oh? what is public opinion, do they have one and is it an informed one? I suspect not

and based on the current short to medium term global environment

Which is? Moreover if something goes wrong what is the potential for harm to NZ based upon short to medium term equipment and training levels of other nations?

the NZDF could easily be remodeled to look like this (and will offer some explanations why below)
.

Its a shopping list based upon no visible assumptions, the whole thing is a non-sequiter

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I totally agree, Im looking foward to the next election in hope of national getting back in, though not the perfect group of people in power, at least they have more pride in our defence force than labour does!

And I will dare to say it, more pro american, which in terms of defence and military training and technology is a good thing!

I will be happy if they manage to put out a defence policy that is more than 'ohh shiny toys to play with Aussie and Singers next door' which seems to have been their way for 20 odd years or more and has helped scupper them in 1999.

 

[KiwiRob]

P.S; aren't the politicians supposed to reflect the will of the people and if so, aren't we, the people supposed to express our wishes in such a way as to leave our will as an unequivocal desire indelibly etched into the minds of those who think they control us, but in fact, we should control?

The public didn't want a third frigate nor were they very interested in the airforce being decapitated. The public spoke (or didn't depending on how you look at it) the govt did what what they wanted to do because they knew the majority of us didn't care.

 

[exported_kiwi]

Ahh, but do the public know what they want? Most dont have the knowledge of the world and defence matters to have an informed opinion let alone make demands of our glorious leaders on the matter.

Sadly, I highly doubt that our public knows what it wants except cheap Lion Red etc. It's one reason I don't live in NZ anymore........couldn't stand an apathetic public and an anti credible defense gov't!

 

[exported_kiwi]

The public didn't want a third frigate nor were they very interested in the airforce being decapitated. The public spoke (or didn't depending on how you look at it) the govt did what what they wanted to do because they knew the majority of us didn't care.

Yeah Rob, sadly our people weren't looking at the big picture, or at the very least, didn't look too far on the horizon to see the possibilities. We have only ourselves to blame for our current predicament and I wish, truly wish that our public demanded some more credible defense procurement besides glorified speedboats (OPVs) and another ferry, none of which are credibly armed and could be mission killed by a few well placed 25mm shots. I won't go into the shenanigans about the loss of our ACW as it's been done all too often, but those F16s looked good. I guess we're stuck to bludging off our ANZAC brothers.
What's happening to all of those big juicy surpluses? If not used for defense or welfare (boo) I hope it's going towards paying down the national debt.

 

[kiwifighter300]

Haven't had time to read all of it yet, but here's the NZDF annual report

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2008/nzdf-annual-report-2008.pdf

And stuff.co.nz news report

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4679790a11.html

Not the best report card

Cheers

 

[Lucasnz]

I just had a get read of the defence force report to parliament. Besides CDF comment about the state of the defence force, the employment context's have been updated and changed.

EC 1
Security Challenges to New Zealand
EC 1 A
Civil Disturbances / Industrial Action affecting essential services becomes
Illegal exploitation of marine resources within the EEZ and other low level threats to New Zealand territorial sovereignty
EC 1 B
Disasters posing serious threat to property, life or the environment becomes Natural or man made disasters
EC 1 C
Incursions through New Zealand's EEZ and other areas within New Zealand jurisdiction that threaten New Zealand's interests becomes Support to the delivery and maintenance of essential services in exceptional circumstances
EC 1 D
Terrorism and acts of Sabotage becomes Terrorist or Asymmetric Threats
EC 1 E
Asymmetric attacks on New Zealand Terrority becomes Support for Antarctic Presence

EC 2 and 3 have similar changes, but the largest changes are to EC 4 & 5.

Whats interesting about EC1 is that is seems to more clearly specify the type of military threat that the NZDF might have to deal with when it talks about low level threats to NZ territorial sovereignty. Out of interest the RNZN Maritime Doctrine in 1997 defined low level conflict as the use of limited forces in widely dispersed and unpredictable agression, intrusion and harassment (p.15),

By that definition a sub launching cruise missiles counts as a low level threat. I think the key question is though does the NZDF need to be capable of meeting conducting medium intensity operations in direct defence of NZ.

Anyway be interested to hear views on the new Employment Contexts.

 

[MrConservative]

This is not good news for the current government, with the the can't sail, fly or fight headlines ten weeks out from an election.

I see the Tui Billboard.
"A sustainable Defence Force that meets New Zealand's needs." Yeah Right!

At least the reports now have an honesty about them. Go back to when Mark Burton was DefMin the whole thing was an exercise in meaningless jargon and self congratulation. The six years that that man had at Defence and the interference of the PM in the portfolio are the reasons why we have the major problems we have now. They are so outstandingly bad and incompetent that Labours Defence record will be one of the areas where an incoming National Government will use to totally discredit Labours general competency in the first year as the White Paper is working itself through the processes.

(Its one of the joys of government and what many an opposition politician looks forward to - that when in Govt you get to be in control of all the information warts and all and then stuff your enemy with it. Make them look stupid. Clarke did a particularly good job of this tactic in her first 3 years which gauranteed at least a six year term for Labour. There is a wealth of juicy material over the last 9 nine years from Labours years in Defence. Nevertheless it is also a massive job to turn Defence from where it currently is. Will take years and billions, and thanks to the buy up of NZ Rail any capacity to make an early start has been curtailed)

 

[MrConservative]

Dr Paul Buchannan has popped up with his own views on David Farrah's kiwiblog (a NZ politics blog) with his contribution relating to the NZDF and the report. Very interesting remarks.

[Paul G. Buchanan
September 4th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

The reasons for the NZDF problems are multiple and not reducible to partisan faults. In fact, the seeds for the current situation were sown once the ANZUS alliance was disbanded–and I do not think the declaration of nuclear free status should have resulted in that–because from then on percentage GDP spending on the NZDF began dropping to its current levels of just under 1.9%. This is slightly lower than the OECD average of approximately 2.5%. Thus, in spite of the Labour government’s cash injection in the last few budgets, the NZDF remains a bit cash-strapped when it comes to weapons procurement. Recruitment is down because, in spite of the economic downturn of the last 12 months (most of which is due to adverse externalities such as oil prices and the global sub-prime crisis), most young people eligible to serve simply prefer to pursue their material fortunes in the private sector or other government agencies. Short of a major resurgence in patriotism, which is unlikely, the best and the brightest simply are not attracted in numbers to the military as a career. I have been lucky to have former students who did in fact join and are serving honorably, but they are few and far between. Again, in spite of recent recruitment efforts, the military is not a first choice or even attractive option for the young. This is not a government failure; it is a disdain for service on the part of those who are the preferred recruitment pool.

Beyond these immediate issues are the larger failures shared by both major parties over the last two decades. In spite of numerous White Papers issued, there appears to be lack of a coherent sense on the part of the civilian elite that ultimately determines national security policy and the NZDF role within it as to what role NZ should play in international security affairs. To put it over-simplistically: geostrategic landscape—>threat environment–>strategic perspective–>mission definition–>force composition–>weapons acquisition–>force training–>operational readiness–> force deployment.

The LAV purchase was based on political, not operational considerations. The vehicle is not suited for jungle, swampy or mountainous terrain, which is where NZDF personnel are most liely to be deployed. The Javelin anti-tank missle, impressive as it is at over a million dollars a copy, is designed to kill heavily armoured main battle tanks. Unless NZ is going to join in an attack on Russia or China, what potential adversary will have such a weapon? That Javelin is over-kill when it comes ot the so-called “technical” vehicles employed by most irregular or low-tech adversaries in the Pacific Rim and beyond ( a “technical usually being a Toyota ute with a machine gun bolted to the flatbed). These purchases were oredered by National and accepted by Labour.

The decision to kill the tactical air wing was wrong even if the F-16 purchase was also an error. Again, the mission defines the platform. What NZ needs is a close air support capability to cover troops on the ground and at sea. It needs a larger surface fleet to cover its territorial waters and undertake martime interdiction duties in sea lanes of communication vital to its interests. It needs a better airlift capability to get troops and supplies abroad quickly in times of crisis. It needs, and could in fact be a model for, joint force inter-operability and combined operations. But to do so first requires an assessment of what the purpose of the NZDF should be given NZ’s recognised international security role. That is a subject for parliamentary debate and public discussion, be it in favour of a limited UN support role or something more roboust and national-defense oriented.

Having said all that I agree that NZDF personnel do remarkably well with what they have. They are well-regarded by virtually all allied military services (allied understood here as the ones that work with the NZDF) and the NZSAS is regarded as one of the elite special forces units in the world. So it should be a source of pride, not disdain, that they do so much on so little.

The NZDF report is obviously a call for money, both for weapons and recruitment. That is a bureaucratic as well as operational imperative. But the real debate should be about the NZDF role in the current and foreseeable strategic environment, not just its need for resources. Perhaps we can move beyond the name calling and engage the larger issue in a bipartisan fashion, as has been suggested above.]

I think Paul has made a typo over the stated 1.9% GDP spend or got it wrong.(It is about 1.2% Gross and around 1.75% for the OECD) Interesting comments on the Javelin as over kill in terms of the likely deployment of NZ ground forces. He is correct in terms of an air combat capability, I remember him sour on the F-16 deal on the grounds that the FA-18 C/D was the better solution as per the multi-role nature of NZ's air combat requirements. Paul is worth listening to though at times his specific knowledge of actual defnce platforms is not always correct - where he has it over many is in his end of the business which it geo-strategic. Hopefully, Paul will play a role in the next White Paper.

 

[Norm]

"Interesting comments on the Javelin as over kill in terms of the likely deployment of NZ ground forces."
The purchase of the Javelin dates back to the deployment of a NZ Army peace keeping contingent to Bosnia in the 90's .They took with them 4 Carl Custav m3 recoilless 84mm two-man crewed At weapons.On one of the patrols the M113 carriers were menaced by 3 T55 tanks(never any mention whether the M3 was available), the Brits were able to helicopter in 2 Milan AT Missile teams and the Tanks retreated. The Army realised that it needed for peace keeping a weapon that could defeat a tank with one shot from a reasonable distance, the M3 could not but remains a useful weapon.In 1999 approval was given to purchase 24 Medium range anti armour systems for 1 RNZIR and 2/1 RNZIR. Held up by change in Government ,eventually in 2006 they arrived.The 24 launch units cost $NZ 207,000 each ,each Missile $NZ141,000 ($26M spend was for 120 missiles $17m,24 launches $5m bal sparesand 10 indoorcomputerised simulators,10 out door laser simulators,10 out door laser simulator target Kits)

"The Javelin anti-tank missle, impressive as it is at over a million dollars a copy, is designed to kill heavily armoured main battle tanks. Unless NZ is going to join in an attack on Russia or China, what potential adversary will have such a weapon? That Javelin is over-kill when it comes ot the so-called “technical” vehicles employed by most irregular or low-tech adversaries in the Pacific Rim and beyond ( a “technical usually being a Toyota ute with a machine gun bolted to the flatbed). These purchases were ordered by National and accepted by Labour."

Even if you where facing a Technical if its mounting a heavy calibre weapon it can stand off some distance (say)1000m and give a peacekeeping patrol a shakeup .A Javelin unit can sort it out to 2500m and keep everyone safe.I think the Good Doctor would reconsider his views if faced with such an event highly likely in peacekeeping..