NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Question to the brains-trust:
Conceptually/theoretically, If Aust &/or US approached NZ and basically said to NZ the effect of:
”…we’ve looked at, and concluded that to provide a joint tangible defence-deterrence in the Australasian Archipelago, we need XYZ capabilities.
Commensurate with your (NZ) national capacity, your contribution to that joint capability is
Naval XYZ
Air XYZ
Deplayable ground effectors XYZ“.
-what if in this random example the Naval capability was actually maintaining a 4 frigate navy, with stipulated ASuW/ASW (which I believe could be afforded)
& or
an air effect?
Do you think the NZG would refuse such a direct requirement, from its key survival allies?
see, ATM why would they even bother, hence they don’t.
but being a link in their own survival chain is a different motivator.
it’s easy to be sceptical and dismiss such a notion, but I’m not so sure the NZG could actually dismiss it.
what do you think?
edit: Did NZ (&Aust) comply similarly to SEATO?
How would this be different?
Conceptually/theoretically, If Aust &/or US approached NZ and basically said to NZ the effect of:
”…we’ve looked at, and concluded that to provide a joint tangible defence-deterrence in the Australasian Archipelago, we need XYZ capabilities.
Commensurate with your (NZ) national capacity, your contribution to that joint capability is
Naval XYZ
Air XYZ
Deplayable ground effectors XYZ“.
-what if in this random example the Naval capability was actually maintaining a 4 frigate navy, with stipulated ASuW/ASW (which I believe could be afforded)
& or
an air effect?
Do you think the NZG would refuse such a direct requirement, from its key survival allies?
see, ATM why would they even bother, hence they don’t.
but being a link in their own survival chain is a different motivator.
it’s easy to be sceptical and dismiss such a notion, but I’m not so sure the NZG could actually dismiss it.
what do you think?
edit: Did NZ (&Aust) comply similarly to SEATO?
How would this be different?
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you will get different answers from different posters but in my view I would say .... yes (as in do-able and a realistic proposition).
Or perhaps correctly, was do-able, that is when NZ was a full member of ANZUS. Under ANZUS NZ maintained four Type 12 ASW Frigates (and the ACF). I have read that this was effectively the bare minimum and anything less would have raised questions in both Washington and Canberra.
NZ maintained that 4 Frigate navy until the year 2000 (i.e. well past the end of ANZUS (for NZ) in 1987 and the end of the Cold War in 1989). IIRC a defence review in the late 1990's proposed downgrading the Frigate fleet from four down to three. (LucasNZ and NgatiMozart may be better able to articulate the reasons).
But I would speculate that with pressure no longer coming from the US (as it no longer maintained naval planning co-ordination and discussions with NZ) it would have been relatively easy for the NZG of the time to make that decision by itself. To be fair from the NZG's perspective apart from being in the period of the post-Cold War "peace dividend", the NZ economy recovered a lot slower than Australia's following the 1987 stock market crash and during the 1990's there was still considerable economic unrest and further austerity measures were implemented (and for example it was not a good time for NZDF to be arguing for the 3rd and 4th ANZAC Frigates, in terms of persuading public opinion). The 1997-98 Asian financial crises also didn't help matters, things started to improve around the turn of the century and into the early 2000's due to those austerity measures taken in the 1990's.
Fast forward today with NZ in a much better shape economically I believe NZ can easily afford additional Frigates and an ACF (and other capabilities).
But the impediments to that are (IMO) NZ's mixed member proportional representation voting system (as it results in coalition governments - mind you excluding this current NZG, which for the first time since the last FPP election in 1993, has an outright majority - a good example of this affecting defence was in 1997 or 98 when the junior coalition partner (supposedly pro-defence NZ First of all parties) refused to back the majority party's plans to purchase the 3rd ANZAC Frigate at Cabinet level (this is well covered in the ANU Timing is Everything book which is a free download). There are other reasons to including the calibre of our parliamentarians but this isn't the forum to get into these details.
But being positive and looking forward the main opposition party now has a number of former defence personnel in its ranks (meaning more interest in defence matters) and with the changing geo-political environment NZ will be forced to make some changes and step up efforts anyway (it probably won't happen under this govt term though, unless perhaps they are forced to make any reassessments due to political or international pressure (like the USA), although can't see this happening before the May Budgets, so maybe something for later in their term as that way they can signal change but kick the can down the road further for the next govt to review in 2023 etc). Certainly bringing NZ back into ANZUS or another new multilateral defence pact would greatly help matters (and allow for better bi-partisan politcial support within NZ)!
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Indeed, speaking of which: One can see the potential for pressure to be applied to New "independent foreign policy" Zealand from multiple directions, including from China via the Solomon's.
---------------------
China set to sign first security deal in the Pacific on Australia’s doorstep (theage.com.au)
Singapore: China and Solomon Islands are set to sign off on a security deal that will see Chinese warships based in the Pacific and shift the balance of power in Australia’s region.
The agreement will give China the power to use its military to protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands and give Beijing a base for its navy less than 2000 kilometres off Australia’s coast. The base would be the first time Australia has had a strategic adversary within striking distance of its coastline since World War II.
A Chinese frigate and a guided missile destroyer on manoeuvres in the South China Sea in 2020CREDIT:LI WEI
“China may, according to its own needs and with the consent of Solomon Islands, make ship visits to, carry out logistical replenishment in and have stopover and transition in the Solomon Islands,” the draft framework agreement states.
“Solomon Islands may, according to its own needs, request China to send police, armed police, military personnel and other law enforcement and armed forces to Solomon Islands to assist in maintaining social order, protecting people’s lives and property.”
The draft, released online on Thursday afternoon and verified by the Australian government, is a sharp escalation in the relationship between the two governments after protests, riots and looting gripped the island nation in November.
-------------------------
I can certainly envisage the possibilities of direct pressure being applied to NZ on policy stances regarding its EEZ , and that pressure being backed by the PLAN/naval 'militia' when their fishing fleets come south 'a plundering. There are of course other opportunities for China to use its resources to pressure a particular policy response from NZ, but this one seems most obvious.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Boom, the grenade has finally been lobbed .... if this does go ahead (I'm expecting significant push back from the US and Australia on the Solomons ... there have been many suggesting Prime Minister Sogavare has been bought off by the CCP over the years and if so then this is the icing on the cake).Indeed, speaking of which: One can see the potential for pressure to be applied to New "independent foreign policy" Zealand from multiple directions, including from China via the Solomon's.
---------------------
China set to sign first security deal in the Pacific on Australia’s doorstep (theage.com.au)
Singapore: China and Solomon Islands are set to sign off on a security deal that will see Chinese warships based in the Pacific and shift the balance of power in Australia’s region.
The agreement will give China the power to use its military to protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands and give Beijing a base for its navy less than 2000 kilometres off Australia’s coast. The base would be the first time Australia has had a strategic adversary within striking distance of its coastline since World War II.
A Chinese frigate and a guided missile destroyer on manoeuvres in the South China Sea in 2020CREDIT:LI WEI
“China may, according to its own needs and with the consent of Solomon Islands, make ship visits to, carry out logistical replenishment in and have stopover and transition in the Solomon Islands,” the draft framework agreement states.
“Solomon Islands may, according to its own needs, request China to send police, armed police, military personnel and other law enforcement and armed forces to Solomon Islands to assist in maintaining social order, protecting people’s lives and property.”
The draft, released online on Thursday afternoon and verified by the Australian government, is a sharp escalation in the relationship between the two governments after protests, riots and looting gripped the island nation in November.
-------------------------
I can certainly envisage the possibilities of direct pressure being applied to NZ on policy stances regarding its EEZ , and that pressure being backed by the PLAN/naval 'militia' when their fishing fleets come south 'a plundering. There are of course other opportunities for China to use its resources to pressure a particular policy response from NZ, but this one seems most obvious.
Expect more unrest from the pro-Taiwan & US Malaita Province (as they are "resisting" CCP overtures and are critical of the Sogavare govt).
Expect more Australian and NZ focus on this issue. Will take a look around the traps to see what our foreign affairs experts are saying as the grenade smoke starts to clear ....
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Haven't had a chance to check out the Australian and other Pacific media yet (I need to get back to work!), in case they covered this but Dr Anna Powles covers the "draft security cooperation agreement".
NZ MSM article from this morning (looking forward to Lucy Craymer's analysis as well as from others in due course).
www.stuff.co.nz
NZ MSM article from this morning (looking forward to Lucy Craymer's analysis as well as from others in due course).
Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
Last edited:
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Yep, I have also figured that Solomons politicians are individuals of negotiable ethics, which of course has me wondering about the realistic operational/stand off range of H6 bombers and how much harbour capacity the Solomons could potentially have.
With regards to NZ pollies reactions, I think the five stages of grief are to be followed:
- denial.
- anger.
- bargaining.
- depression.
- acceptance.
NZ On Screen: Muldoon The Grim Face of Power - the Schnapps election - YouTube
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Funny you should say that, I was looking up the H6 bomber last night (was going to reply back to the RNZAF thread on the ACF but ran out of time) as I recall they or another PLAAF aircraft type were recently exercising in Indonesian airspace i.e. close to Australia? I recall it being news a few months back but couldn't find anything on it (apart from the PLAAF incursions into Malaysian airspace and Singapore's "Flight Information Region (FIR)" last year).
But I did find some other interesting reading on the PLAAF and their activities within this wider region (some of this has probably been posted before on the Aussie forums).
Basically the H-6N with air refueling could almost reach NZ using ALBM's even when based on the PRC mainland, let alone somewhere closer!
Fire! China Wants Its H-6K Bomber To Kill Targets 2,000 Miles Away
The warplane will be armed with hypersonic weapons, according to Chinese media.
Then there is the new H-20.
China’s Future Stealth Bomber Fleet
What a Chinese aerospace magazine cover tells us about China’s future stealth bombers.
thediplomat.com
This Australian Air and Space Power Centre put out an interesting document on the CCP's grey zone challenges.
Assuming the CCP achieves a south or central Pacific base in the future, and short of total war of course (when these bases start getting obliterated), surely in the meantime we can expect to see a lot more incursions, muscle flexing and grey-zone activities by the PLAAF and PLAN etc. We will need to deal with this.
So on top of the NZ$20B ($US14B) "committed" (ahem Minister of Finance???) to the DCP19 plan for capital purchases over the next 10-15 years to replace or upgrade existing assets and acquire new ones (eg ANZAC Frigate replacements, 2nd LPD & SOPV & Maritime domain surveillance systems & long range/endurance UAV's & strategic airlift, expanded Army etc) .... I believe NZ needs to spend another NZ$20B (or so) on NEW capital purchases that isn't covered by the current DCP, which would fund 1 or 2 ACF deployable squadrons ($$ depending on aircraft type chosen), possibly up to 3 E-7A's to allow NZ to monitor air threats north of us, as we don't have ground-based primary radar systems there & definitely another 4-5 P-8A's, ASW/ASuW/AAW Frigates #3 and #4, MCM and mine laying vessels which are deployable into the South Pacific (as per WW2 experiences) and a second AOR to cater for a growing fleet and provide redundancy, expanded Army and logistics (eg another Battalion plus support at least so they can sustain deployments anywhere in the Indo-Pacific but also new personnel for Coastal and Air defence systems which also need to be air and sea deployable into the South and Central Pacific (NZ's forward bases as per WW2 experiences) hence additional C-130J's to move them and ideally larger heavy lift aircraft & medium or heavy helos). Also some thought needs to be given to having ECM/jamming systems and aircraft & HARM missiles (which I haven't budgeted for). I'll leave this "fantasy wishlist" (which is totally affordable despite, pollie BS, due to our current low debt levels) for another time so as not to derail current discussions!
Last edited:
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Indeed, I do think that the interesting thing is the Sino-Solomons agreement and the potential it gives China in a geo-political sense given their known resources, I think discussing exactly what sort of gear NZ should acquire to deal with it it is a wast of time tbh, something best left to NZDF.Funny you should say that, I was looking up the H6 bomber last night (was going to reply back to the RNZAF thread on the ACF but ran out of time) as I recall they or another PLAAF aircraft type were recently exercising in Indonesian airspace i.e. close to Australia? I recall it being news a few months back but couldn't find anything on it (apart from the PLAAF incursions into Malaysian airspace and Singapore's "Flight Information Region (FIR)" last year).
But I did find some other interesting reading on the PLAAF and their activities within this wider region (some of this has probably been posted before on the Aussie forums).
Basically the H-6N with air refueling could almost reach NZ using ALBM's even when based on the PRC mainland, let alone somewhere closer!
Fire! China Wants Its H-6K Bomber To Kill Targets 2,000 Miles Away
The warplane will be armed with hypersonic weapons, according to Chinese media.nationalinterest.org
Then there is the new H-20.
China’s Future Stealth Bomber Fleet
What a Chinese aerospace magazine cover tells us about China’s future stealth bombers.thediplomat.com
This Australian Air and Space Power Centre put out an interesting document on the CCP's grey zone challenges.
Assuming the CCP achieves a south or central Pacific base in the future, and short of total war of course (when these bases start getting obliterated), surely in the meantime we can expect to see a lot more incursions, muscle flexing and grey-zone activities by the PLAAF and PLAN etc. We will need to deal with this.
snip
I'll leave this "fantasy wishlist" (which is totally affordable despite pollie BS) for another time so as not to derail current discussions!
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Yep and yeah I agree that discussing exactly what's needed is best left to the NZDF and MoD (although I think us firing off a few examples every now and then can be helpful to spark debate and as a rark up or to "help" NZ's own professional defence analysts, who unlike their Aussie counterparts, tend to be incredibly "conservative" by NOT discussing capabilities the NZDF requires!
The best I have seen is one or two of them arguing for a 3rd Frigate but the context for that was to sustain current peacetime deployments (which is true). But we learnt from WW2 that NZ needed more combat vessels as per the initial post WW2 fleet composition of two cruisers and six frigates (and the post WW2 plan for two medium bomber squadrons and one fighter squadron, which never was properly realised). If the CCP does manage to build bases in the central or south Pacific then even 3 Frigates won't cut it! (Let alone NO ACF)!
OTOH the NZDF and MoD are muzzled compared to the UK and Aussie counterparts so we (public) never know what they are thinking until the NZG announces something (or more like, doesn't).
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Ive always thought that history can be a very good guide for these sorts of discussions, and one can obviously point to German activity in both world wars in the Pacific/NZ as well as Japan in WW2, but also in WW1 and NZs views and reaction to them in both wars.
From this it should be apparent that geography provides a defence, but it can also provide a hindrance if aid is no where near NZ or even available, and this should foster a greater desire for self reliance, and we should take our ques from that. So whilst not talking about specific kit like OPVs or F35's, I do think we can make some informed, if generalised, comments about the requirements of whats needed to defend NZ and its interests in the South Pacific if this Sino-Solomon's agreement is ratified.
The question then is what sort of capacity does the Solomon's have or need to host sufficient Chinese forces to threaten NZ and its interests in the South Pacific? Answer that and then there's the basis for some discussion on what NZ should do.
I think that this can be better than suggesting 'NZ should have 80 Fxxxx' fighters or 'X capability', as those who do know about the capabilities of modern gear and its suitability cant say much of anything and those of us who dont know cannot make an overly informed comment on the kit.
Building on the above thoughts , this news will not be new to the Govt leadership their weekly, daily intell briefs and the like so which begs the question , who said fuel security was not an issue , based on what ? , noting CCP ships and aircraft maybe stradding the main routes to NZ , closing Marsden Pt should not be allowed if regional security is even a concideration
I'm sorry but that's an absolutely ridiculous comparison.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Im not sure how you came to this comparison, AU is not about to invade the Solomons and has no designs to, nor is it the dictatorship that China is. Indeed, to the contrary, reading the text of the agreement shows great potential for abuse of the Solomon's by China.
As for NZ, the potential presence of Chinese forces in the Solomons would grant to China the ability to project power by sea and air directly into NZs EEZ and so allow China to use its forces to directly or indirectly pressure NZ to adopt an alternate policy stance under duress should it take a stance contrary to China's wishes. How China might do this can be seen with their use of fishing fleets and their selective adherance to international agreements and conventions such as UNCLOS.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
I would suggest that this government, and several before it, have a habit of ignoring things that are unpleasant or inconvenient to deal with.
danonz
Member
Trolling
Yes it is ridiculous, but I'm just highlighting that people and governments can get agitated when their own neighbors - rightly or wrongly get closer to countries they consider enemies.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Foreign Minister 'very concerned' by Solomon Islands' reported security deal with China
The deal would reportedly allow China to deploy forces to protect Chinese personnel and major projects in the Islands.
www.newshub.co.nz
Well are you concerned enough to up the defence budget... whats that?... no not really... didn't think so...
Last edited:
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
A measured response by NZGov, I think, as the agreement has not been ratified.
----------------------
"If genuine, this agreement would be very concerning. Such agreements will always be the right of any sovereign country to enter into.
"However, developments within this purported agreement could destabilise the current institutions and arrangements that have long underpinned the Pacific region's security.
"This would not benefit New Zealand or our Pacific neighbours."
-----------------
The article does reference the 2021 defence assessment, which is good in a paper like The Herald given the somewhat left wing orientation of its readership.
------------------------------
"New Zealand's Defence Assessment 2021 warns of risks associated with China's military ambitions in the Pacific, alongside a range of other countries, including the United States.
The assessment warns the "most-threatening" potential development included a military base of dual-use facility being established by "a state that does not share New Zealand's values and security interests".
"Such a development would fundamentally alter the strategic balance of the region," the assessment stated.
"In addition to crowding out access to limited Pacific infrastructure, such a military facility would enable a greater quantity, quality and diversity of military capabilities to operate in and through the region, as well as potentially supporting grey zone and other activities counter to New Zealand's interests.""
----------------
Nanaia Mahuta says China-Solomon Islands security deal 'very concerning' if genuine - NZ Herald
I would hope that some serious thinking is going on in NZ government defence and foreign policy offices over the next wee while.
----------------------
"If genuine, this agreement would be very concerning. Such agreements will always be the right of any sovereign country to enter into.
"However, developments within this purported agreement could destabilise the current institutions and arrangements that have long underpinned the Pacific region's security.
"This would not benefit New Zealand or our Pacific neighbours."
-----------------
The article does reference the 2021 defence assessment, which is good in a paper like The Herald given the somewhat left wing orientation of its readership.
------------------------------
"New Zealand's Defence Assessment 2021 warns of risks associated with China's military ambitions in the Pacific, alongside a range of other countries, including the United States.
The assessment warns the "most-threatening" potential development included a military base of dual-use facility being established by "a state that does not share New Zealand's values and security interests".
"Such a development would fundamentally alter the strategic balance of the region," the assessment stated.
"In addition to crowding out access to limited Pacific infrastructure, such a military facility would enable a greater quantity, quality and diversity of military capabilities to operate in and through the region, as well as potentially supporting grey zone and other activities counter to New Zealand's interests.""
----------------
Nanaia Mahuta says China-Solomon Islands security deal 'very concerning' if genuine - NZ Herald
I would hope that some serious thinking is going on in NZ government defence and foreign policy offices over the next wee while.
The N.Z. Government response is pretty much in line with what the Australian Government is saying. A very welcome show of solidarity! However, I would think the Australian Government would be particularly concerned that just one day before this leak, they had agreed to provide more financial and other aid to the Solomon's. What I am seeing is a Solomon's Government welcoming whatever economic benefits that will come their way, from whomever is offering it, regardless of previous historical ties. They know what they are doing. They are playing off China's regional ambitions, with Australian and NZ fears of what those ambitions mean in a regional strategic sense. It is 'wedge' foreign relations. It is very serious stuff, and the current Solomon's Government knows it. There is not too much we can do, unless we stump up with a far better offer that gives The Solomon's long term economic benefit, and long term security. There can be a win win out of this. The basing arrangements that China are seeking, and which bring them close to Australia's doorstep, with all that entails for the surrounding region, can just as easily be reversed. What if Australia and NZ had basing arrangements in the Solomon's, not China? Where there's a will!