NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Read this in the paper this morning and was deeply disturbed . Our finance minister has the long term vision of a rock, "buried very deep in the ground" and appears to be promoting a "Short term gain for Labour for long term pain for NZ. From my point of view, we are steadily heading into a period of greater instability in the world due to the effects of unrestrained population growth and climate change, where we could face a direct threat to our freedom in the years to come and we need to increase out defence ability significantly and provide a significant deterrent against possible threats in the future. Grant Robertson won't be helping long term wellbeing of NZ's if we loose our freedom or have to submit to external blackmail by force in the future. Most other countries in our region appear to be increasing their defence ability but this Wally has put on his rose tinted glasses and is doing the opposite.
For those who have not been around for the amount of time I have, our defence budget about 60 years ago was approximately 2.5% It was cut back by 1990 to 1.6% and is now less than 1%. of GDP
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
This is an all to common problem amongst Western democracies. Pollies will short change defence in order to fund feel good programs for the whining electoral masses who don’t have a clue. Part of job of being an elected representative is to inform oneself about what is good for the country and act accordingly for what is best for the country not enhancing future electoral success...ya I know, not happening until the next mega crisis.
They have an unexpected surplus of $100 million when they forecasted a deficit of $900 million, and the net debt is low at 20.1% of GDP Government welcomes $100m surplus after predicting deficit. So why raid the NZDF coffers? The "top ministers" do not include the Defence Minister and only NZ First minister included in that category would be Winston Peters who doesn't care one iota about defence. NZDF is extremely lean and hollowed out now and can't afford to lose any money, so where are they going to take it from? What capabilities do we lose? This is a purely politically motivated stunt, by a bunch of no hopers.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Your preaching to the converted NG in my 30 years of service this occured every 3 years without fail NZDF was raided & told to tighten its belt with one exception being funding for Operational deployments over the last 10-15 years. Off the top of my head budgets to be hit (Im only dealing with Army) will be live firing, non essential maintenance of camps, single service courses, recruiting, Exercises.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Understood. Problem there is deferment has happened so many times across so many areas we could be at crisis point. Mogs are critical, gats replacement also mog based is long overdue, battalions are at well below what would have been thought minimum levels and new projects like nea are funded but had been put back time and again. Accommodation wasn't even good enough for temporary prison service or so the rumour goes. But agree live firing will get canned. And less exercises.
Interesting article in the UK Defence Journal: The UK and New Zealand – A special relationship for the 21st century, arguing that New Zealand is one of UK’s most important partners and with the UK seeking a more active position in the Indo-Pacific, New Zealand can become a central partner in this role.
The author is a student of International Relations at the Sao Paulo State University and also explores British imperial and military history and its legacies to the modern world, so offers an outside view. The problem with this article is that it explores the subject from a historical and current UK point of view, but whilst it notes the NZ 2016 DWP statement that the UK remains and will remain one of NZ's closest defence and security partnerships, he doesn't note that it is all talk and no action, with the resourcing of NZDF in real terms being either continually reduced or marking time. Having said that he does raise some valid points.
The author is a student of International Relations at the Sao Paulo State University and also explores British imperial and military history and its legacies to the modern world, so offers an outside view. The problem with this article is that it explores the subject from a historical and current UK point of view, but whilst it notes the NZ 2016 DWP statement that the UK remains and will remain one of NZ's closest defence and security partnerships, he doesn't note that it is all talk and no action, with the resourcing of NZDF in real terms being either continually reduced or marking time. Having said that he does raise some valid points.
Whilst this is Australian centric, it eaqually applies to NZ. Hugh White has burst into print again and whilst the naysayers will say he's not worth listening too, he does raise a valid point here about allies and friends in the region and why Australia, in this case NZ, must plan to fight alone. Why Australia must plan to fight alone. I don't agree with everything that he writes, but in this case I think he has a very valid point.
It is my belief that too many assumptions are being made by too many people, about who will turn up on the day if / when it arrives. It is always assumed that Australia / US will turn up, and I see defence pollies, bureaucracts, analysts, writers, strategists in the open media, and posters on here who blindly follow the mantra of the Australia / US turning up for the big blue against johnny foreigner, but what if they can't / won't? What do you do then? That's the question I am posing.
Don't forget that the big blue against johnny foreigner doesn't just mean johnny foreigner sitting off the coast lobbing high explosive bricks onto our fair shores. It can take other forms, especially against a maritime island nation with chronic sea blindness that is highly dependant upon maritime resources to transport 99% of its trade.
It is my belief that too many assumptions are being made by too many people, about who will turn up on the day if / when it arrives. It is always assumed that Australia / US will turn up, and I see defence pollies, bureaucracts, analysts, writers, strategists in the open media, and posters on here who blindly follow the mantra of the Australia / US turning up for the big blue against johnny foreigner, but what if they can't / won't? What do you do then? That's the question I am posing.
Don't forget that the big blue against johnny foreigner doesn't just mean johnny foreigner sitting off the coast lobbing high explosive bricks onto our fair shores. It can take other forms, especially against a maritime island nation with chronic sea blindness that is highly dependant upon maritime resources to transport 99% of its trade.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4B-JZQG9FA
Here Hugh White is talking to Victoria University of Wellington... he basically says the same thing about defending Australia, but basically says we need to work together else we will get blocked off...
‘It is my belief’ that any genuine incursion into either Australian home strategic interests, or NZs, will by implicit definition involve both Aust and NZ.
We are profoundly linked by strategic priorities and cultural history.
This does not detract from independence and specific familial rivalry.
I have beaten this drum previously, it will not be a surprise, until one day we need it and it’s not there.
We, both nations, do not exist in isolation. We may venture on independent expeditionary foreign policy actions, but when it comes to home turf impacts (eg SLC) we ride the same boat.
We train together, but we are not hand-in-glove linked capability-wise.
Aust cannot concentrate on the northern approaches and rely on NZ to secure the East Coast as a capable ally.
Just as much as other than a cop on the beat, NZ cannot project definitive power in the South Pacific, without drawing on RAN war fighting capability.
It is my view that NZ do this, because they are not intrinsically valued in a capability matrix. Sure they’re utterly awesome and professional, but we don’t really think of them contributing core combat assets.
Who is a future theatre commander going to factor into the ORBAT?
Who’s gunna cover the east coast whilst the push is up north?
just my 2c.
I agree with your assessment. The NZDF has been hollowed out and defanged because of a lack of political will. In fact I would call it political negligence bordering on vandalism. Our pollies love to talk the talk about defence to look good and look like they are taking it seriously, however they definitely don't walk the walk and play the game of smoke and mirrors. To them defence is a luxury, not a necessity. That is our problem in a nutshell - them and Treasury.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Honestly I have a somewhat different take on why the NZDF has gotten to where it currently is. I do agree, in part, that some of the pollies have looked on Defence as a luxury as opposed to a necessity, having been able to get away with doing so due to a rather prolonged peace in NZ's immediate environs which therefore caused the potential for threats to cease coming to mind for most ordinary kiwis. OTOH though, I have not been able to shake the notion which I have had for several years that a number of successive pollies have, for ideological reasons sought to and unfortunately succeeded in deliberating weakening the NZDF, corresponding with what seemed to be/have been efforts to re-align NZ into a Non-aligned nation which would be neutral, friendly to all and non-threatening.
At present, given the attitude of the NZ government, I have given up hope that NZDF will be properly resourced.
I can only hope that the country will stay the course on its announced defence plans, limited as they are. I continue to hope that the NZDF will eventually become a 3 frigate navy, to enable escort of troop-lift ships, like HMNZS Canterbury and the proposed Enhanced Sealift Vessel (with a well dock), into relevant deployment locations to support the army.
The defanging of NZDF is deliberate but non-aligned does not mean unarmed. India is non-aligned and operates 28 fighter squadrons.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
We all know, as a rule (according to kiwi politicians) kiwis don't want to spend money on defence. So cut back to get the votes... and if they get in power they think one of the reasons they got ion was cutbacks to defence... The silly thing is I don't actually know anyone that says cut-back on defence cut back more, more... more... I haven't actually met anyone (I am sure they are out there, just haven't met them) everyone I know and speak to (if the topic gets to that subject) all say we should be spending more on defence. And they all say we need a bigger Navy... when I ask why (playing devil's advocate) the main answer is we are surrounded by water, or we are an island nation... and even the few that say have you seen the size of the area we have to patrol just for S&R etc (kinda surprises me as that attitude has been slowly changing)
{RANT MODE ON}
The average polly does the cut back thing to get the votes, and Defence is the first place they look at for cut back on government expenditure when in reality it should be one of the last places to look at. As I have said before the one place as a private citizen that I can not cover privately is defence of the country... Private health... no prob, private school/education sure, private insurance, ok, private porn page... opps sorry did I say that out loud... (trying to keep a sense of humour) Defending the country... ummm nope not now they have taken some guns away...
And all these cutbacks that have happened over the years has lead us to where we are to today. With an underfunded defence force, 20 years behind the 8 ball and now have to spend the big bucks to catch up which even if and when we do we are still behind the 8 ball...
Is NZ broke... no... we have been doing pretty well a lot better than many other countries...
{RANT MODE OFF}
I just hope that the next government sticks with the 20 billion dollars over 15 years deal... because that is a start.
Other than that how as your day ... lol :-/
{RANT MODE ON}
The average polly does the cut back thing to get the votes, and Defence is the first place they look at for cut back on government expenditure when in reality it should be one of the last places to look at. As I have said before the one place as a private citizen that I can not cover privately is defence of the country... Private health... no prob, private school/education sure, private insurance, ok, private porn page... opps sorry did I say that out loud... (trying to keep a sense of humour) Defending the country... ummm nope not now they have taken some guns away...
And all these cutbacks that have happened over the years has lead us to where we are to today. With an underfunded defence force, 20 years behind the 8 ball and now have to spend the big bucks to catch up which even if and when we do we are still behind the 8 ball...
Is NZ broke... no... we have been doing pretty well a lot better than many other countries...
{RANT MODE OFF}
I just hope that the next government sticks with the 20 billion dollars over 15 years deal... because that is a start.
Other than that how as your day ... lol :-/
I’d say NZ does what it does because it’s existing in satellite searching for a relevance.
A threat, for example, to Australian north is a direct strategic imperative to NZ, & conversely threatened SLC to NZs NE is of Aust strategic importance, yet no one has evolved a mindset realisation that inevitably the two independent nations at the southern end of the Asian archipelago will inevitably need to work together and deploy in concert with common goals. There is no capability framework that links both together.
This is most keenly felt in the Naval sphere, where two islands exist but only one can box, and currently one has nothing to send.
i tend to disagree with the notion that the NZ ppl begrudge defence spending.
I get that there are competing social demands for the dollar, but spending money can also make money and add to economies, just like building a roadway. I think they will see that.
More to the point tho, if something did evolve (in this unsettled era), the NZ ppl will EXPECT the NZDF to be meaningful. Complacency may bite them when they see their cupboards have been let bare.
Without a context, why would NZgov be motivated to do anything different to what it’s already doing? - ‘why should they have 3 or more frigates, and who needs anti-ship missiles anyway?’
That context, of Inevitable joint focused hand-in-glove capability, is hiding in plain view. Not until it’s conceptualised and realised as a logical prudent requirement will anything substantially change.
A threat, for example, to Australian north is a direct strategic imperative to NZ, & conversely threatened SLC to NZs NE is of Aust strategic importance, yet no one has evolved a mindset realisation that inevitably the two independent nations at the southern end of the Asian archipelago will inevitably need to work together and deploy in concert with common goals. There is no capability framework that links both together.
This is most keenly felt in the Naval sphere, where two islands exist but only one can box, and currently one has nothing to send.
i tend to disagree with the notion that the NZ ppl begrudge defence spending.
I get that there are competing social demands for the dollar, but spending money can also make money and add to economies, just like building a roadway. I think they will see that.
More to the point tho, if something did evolve (in this unsettled era), the NZ ppl will EXPECT the NZDF to be meaningful. Complacency may bite them when they see their cupboards have been let bare.
Without a context, why would NZgov be motivated to do anything different to what it’s already doing? - ‘why should they have 3 or more frigates, and who needs anti-ship missiles anyway?’
That context, of Inevitable joint focused hand-in-glove capability, is hiding in plain view. Not until it’s conceptualised and realised as a logical prudent requirement will anything substantially change.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
I am sure as the saying goes if push comes to shove... and Aussie comes under attack and is truely threatened... NZ would offer everything thing it has... while it is not much on the grand scale of things... I have pointed out many times else where...
It is still extra troops, 105 extra NZLAV (or 75 depending if they sell any lol) it is still extra LOVs and MHOVs for transporting... it is still extra javlin missiles and launchers, and still extra x24 105 howitzers, and I believe the Mistrals are still in storage...(Not 100% sure on that one) Its extra SAS units
It is still extra Herc's, extra NH-90's & A109 Helo's extra troop transport with the 757's as you have to move your defence force somehow... and more the merrier it is extra upgraded P-3k2 (or P-8's depending on when this scenario happens) It is extra pilot training with the T-6.
It is still an extra 2 frigates, and tanker, as well as a MRV sealift vessel (again depending on when, as a 2nd LPD could be on the cards) and some semi-decent Sub-Hunting / Anti surface SeaSprites, and not forgetting the DHV for anti-mine and dive tender etc...
But more importantly... if Aussie is threatened, we offer more doctors, nurses, medical supplies, food and resources, and a place for refugees if needed...
And that would be the initial response... as NZ gears up... (Is that ever going to happen highly unlikely but not improbable...
I was saying "according to" politicians
We spending an extra 12 billion on infrastructure...
Agree...
3 frigates as we at present don't have a frigate on duty as they are both in refit (have been for 18 months... we have just been lucky... 3 frigates at least, so we have enough vessels for escort duties for the Enhanced Sealift... and HMNZS Canterbury as well as other duties.
Antiship missile? The best defence is going on the offence, and if we want to be effective as part of the fleet for fleet protection and as part of an alliance and or partner we need to have a credible offensive power and that we do not have...
Our frigates can protect themself ok(ish) but that is it... they have nothing to go on the offense with that can really take out other surface vessels unless the are in close range... and by then I would say it is too late... other than the SeaSprite and the AGM-119 Penguin Missile... Which to be honest, while it is a start it is only a short to medium-range missile and the helo is probably going to be taken out by the enemy ship anti-air systems before they are in range...
The point if we want to help our allies and partners in the South China Sea for freedom of navigation, keeping our shipping lanes open and free, and want to protect our resources including the southern oceans and Ross Sea then we need to step up our game and bring something to the table and have that offensive power and a decent anti-ship missile system is part of that and this is in the context of today... not tomorrow, but today...
Last edited:
Prior to WW2 we spent very little money on defence, so in 1937 / 38 there was a big panic in Wellington. Their sphincter muscles went into overdrive in the last quartet of 1941. After the end of WW2, the first thing the pollies did was cut right back on defence to the core, then wasted a $hitload of money in the defence budgets. During the period 1946 - 48 there were mutinies in all 3 services over pay and conditions, which hadn't changed from wartime conditions. The NZG had a whole lot of US equipment that it had acquired under lend lease that it had paid for, owned and was basically debt free, because of reverse lend lease it had cleared its lend lease debt with the US. The were hundreds of F4U Corsairs, P-40 Kittyhawks, TBF/M Avengers, P-51D Mustangs, C-47 Dakotas, PBY Catalinas, US supplied military trucks etc., in NZ, plus I think the Sherman tanks the 3rd Division used in the Solomon Islands. So what did our our all knowing erstwhile pollies do? They destroyed the US aircraft except for the the C-47s, Mustangs and some of the Avengers. The Kittyhawks, Corsairs (about 200+ plus) were all parked up outside of Hamiliton and destroyed. 20 Corsairs that 14 Sqn flew in Japan during the occupation were burnt there on 14 Sqns departure. They went back to buying British gear. They'd ordered 80 Mosquitoes from the UK during the war which arrived well after the war. We ended up flying about 20 and axing and burning the rest. The thing was that we could of used those US aircraft into the 50s, not worried about new gear until late 40s / early 50s and gone straight to the Canberras and 2nd generation jet fighters, such as the CAC Sabre. We didn't need a cruiser and should've acquired either more of the Loch Class frigates or 3 destroyers besides the frigates.
In 1958 the NZ Labour Party had a remit at its annual conference stating that it was against nuclear weapons and armed conflict. That passed and became Labour Party policy and has been ever since. That's why in 1972 / 73 the then Kirk Labour govt (2nd Labour govt), sent a RNZN frigate to Mururoa Atoll to protest about the French nuclear atmospheric tests. Annoyed the French somewhat. In the late 1980s the Lange Labour govt (3rd Labour govt) sent another RNZN ship to Mururoa Atoll to monitor French underground nuclear tests, which annoyed the French even more. This was the same govt that introduced and enacted the nuclear free legislation.
Until 1991 we kept a reasonable defence force. Then it all changed with the austerity cabal hitting Parliament and Treasury has been rubbing its hands in glee ever since because is basically like a pig in mud with the austerity cabal still holding sway. It even loved it more with the rise of Helen Clark and her far left anti US and ACF cronies who succeeded in what treasury had been trying to do for decades - get rid of the ACF. The far lefties because of their anti US stance and Treasury because of their aversion to paying for it. Enter a group of mid level army officers who basically committed treason by working with Clark and Treasury to kill the ACF and when Treasury advises the GOTD that the Army should be given the bulk of the defence budget because it is cheaper to operate than either the RNZN or the RNZAF, it does make one wonder who's shacking up with who.
So it's not a recent phenomena, but the drastic cutting, defanging and hollowing out is and that started in 1991, took off in earnest in 1999, and hasn't stopped since because both sides of the House can see that they can get away with it. One side because of their far left ideological bent and the other because of their austerity addiction.
100% correct on both counts. The purity of the woke discourse within NZ Govt circles particularly in the early 2000's saw Defence as neanderthal and misogynistic and morally beneath them. Some of that still exists though over the last decade it is less ideological and more about saving money as it is seen as a discretionary spend rather than a core governmental responsibility.