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).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?
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)!
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.
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.Boom, the grenade has 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).
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 ....
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).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.
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!
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!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.
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.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).
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 conciderationIve 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.
I'm sorry but that's an absolutely ridiculous comparison.The similarities of the geopolitical situation almost resembles something else. Now Imagine Auz is Russia, Solomon's islands are Ukraine and China is NATO. Not sure where NZ would fit in the comparison though.
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.The similarities of the geopolitical situation almost resembles something else. Now Imagine Auz is Russia, Solomon's islands are Ukraine and China is NATO. Not sure where NZ would fit in the comparison though.
I would suggest that this government, and several before it, have a habit of ignoring things that are unpleasant or inconvenient to deal with.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
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.I'm sorry but that's an absolutely ridiculous comparison.