NZDF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

@Gibbo yep he doesn't say a word about it. The article was published in March and Whangaraparoa was chosen to house the Kiwi Wuhan evacuees at the end of January, so it's not as though he was unaware of it.

The budget is in a couple of weeks so the C-130J-30 announcement may occur around then. There was an item on the idiot box tonight about a Hercules taking a load of relief supplies to Fiji.

I don't think that the ATR-72MP will get a look in here. None of our allies or coalition partners operate it, more importantly it's not operated by a FVEY force, so we won't be that keen. I do like the MQ-9B Sea Guardian and it definitely would fit within NZs fleet. We also require a 3rd 2nd teir fixed wing capability for the training of AWOs and surveillance of the EEZ. A B350 King Air fleet can do that, as well as MEPT, and comms aircraft. Either lease or own outright.

Turning to things infrastructure and naval, I am of the opinion that it would be a good infrastructure investment for the much talked about dry dock to be built in Whangarei Harbour. I would even go so far as to suggest moving DNB up there as well.

 

[aviation_enthus]

What about more cooperation with Australia?

I’ve wondered if a cheaper option for the RNZAF would be to contribute to an extra squadron (or two) of F-35’s operated in cooperation with the RAAF. Flown as extra RAAF squadrons but the Australian government would allow NZ citizens to join the RAAF. The funding required from NZ would cover acquisition and on going costs of the aircraft. This way NZ wouldn’t have to recreate a fast jet training system and in house experience.

HOWEVER! This idea would have to be combined with a mutual defence treaty type of idea for two reasons;
1: to convince the NZ govt they would have access to the fighters in the event of a threat to them.
2: allow Aus to deploy the fighters to combat a threat to Aus eg the north, that also would threaten NZ (if Aus was defeated).

Important to note this sort of agreement would not allow things like the deployment to the Middle East of F/A-18’s without the specific approval of both governments.

Something like this could potentially be used for additional airlift capacity, naval amphibious ships or maritime patrol UAV’s as well.

Australia and NZ have a long history of cooperation in major conflicts and a regional threat to one country will affect the other. While there would be significant political challenges I think a level of cooperation or a combined pool of equipment could reduce some costs and provide a benefit for both sides.

 

[Todjaeger]

What about more cooperation with Australia?

I’ve wondered if a cheaper option for the RNZAF would be to contribute to an extra squadron (or two) of F-35’s operated in cooperation with the RAAF. Flown as extra RAAF squadrons but the Australian government would allow NZ citizens to join the RAAF. The funding required from NZ would cover acquisition and on going costs of the aircraft. This way NZ wouldn’t have to recreate a fast jet training system and in house experience.

HOWEVER! This idea would have to be combined with a mutual defence treaty type of idea for two reasons;
1: to convince the NZ govt they would have access to the fighters in the event of a threat to them.
2: allow Aus to deploy the fighters to combat a threat to Aus eg the north, that also would threaten NZ (if Aus was defeated).

Important to note this sort of agreement would not allow things like the deployment to the Middle East of F/A-18’s without the specific approval of both governments.

Something like this could potentially be used for additional airlift capacity, naval amphibious ships or maritime patrol UAV’s as well.

Australia and NZ have a long history of cooperation in major conflicts and a regional threat to one country will affect the other. While there would be significant political challenges I think a level of cooperation or a combined pool of equipment could reduce some costs and provide a benefit for both sides.

Given that there would be issues with a jointly owned/operated non-combat capability as has previously been pointed out in the RNZAF thread, when there was a thought that NZ might purchase one or two C-17's, I really do not see a jointly owned/operated fighter sqd. There would need to be a significantly greater degree of agreement on defence issues than currently exists.

Not to mention such a programme would still be quite costly. The flyaway costs for a sqd of F-35 would likely be pushing up against if not past USD$1 bil. While NZ could afford such a purchase, it would require either shifting more funding to Vote Defence, or more likely a reorganization of what NZ funds in terms of defence. This in turn would mean more current NZDF capabilities being either reduced or lost altogether.

 

[aviation_enthus]

Given that there would be issues with a jointly owned/operated non-combat capability as has previously been pointed out in the RNZAF thread, when there was a thought that NZ might purchase one or two C-17's, I really do not see a jointly owned/operated fighter sqd. There would need to be a significantly greater degree of agreement on defence issues than currently exists.

Not to mention such a programme would still be quite costly. The flyaway costs for a sqd of F-35 would likely be pushing up against if not past USD$1 bil. While NZ could afford such a purchase, it would require either shifting more funding to Vote Defence, or more likely a reorganization of what NZ funds in terms of defence. This in turn would mean more current NZDF capabilities being either reduced or lost altogether.

That’s why I said the mutual defence treaty (or similar) would be required first. If we can establish the framework for dealing with combined threats then something like this could follow.

Given the expansion of China further into the South Pacific, a joint amphibious/patrol option could be a good first element to build on. This capability would provide AUS/NZ the ability to assist with disaster relief as a combined force to build goodwill and influence in our area of the world. Just one example of joint ‘soft power’ that could easily be deployed.

Again the political agreements would have to come first.

 

[oldsig127]

HOWEVER! This idea would have to be combined with a mutual defence treaty type of idea for two reasons;
1: to convince the NZ govt they would have access to the fighters in the event of a threat to them.
2: allow Aus to deploy the fighters to combat a threat to Aus eg the north, that also would threaten NZ (if Aus was defeated).

Important to note this sort of agreement would not allow things like the deployment to the Middle East of F/A-18’s without the specific approval of both governments.

No national government should give such power of veto over national actions to another unelected legislature however friendly. I can see it over something like a shared nuclear deterrent, but not over the ordinary emploment of military force.

oldsig

 

[Todjaeger]

That’s why I said the mutual defence treaty (or similar) would be required first. If we can establish the framework for dealing with combined threats then something like this could follow.

Given the expansion of China further into the South Pacific, a joint amphibious/patrol option could be a good first element to build on. This capability would provide AUS/NZ the ability to assist with disaster relief as a combined force to build goodwill and influence in our area of the world. Just one example of joint ‘soft power’ that could easily be deployed.

Again the political agreements would have to come first.

There is a mutual defence treaty already existing between Australia and NZ. A joint combat force would require agreements more stringent and substantial than a mutual defence treaty. Such agreements would be more in line with Australia and New Zealand merging together into a unified nation. Given the similar yet still quite different characteristics of Australia and New Zealand, I just do not foresee such accords happening.

 

[Wombat000]

Treaty but not a symbiotic capability plan.
IMHO the notion re questioning NZ independent thought/action is absurd. - no one would question NZs independence.
It does not require ’merged’ DFs, just forethought in how each deploys their capability expectations in obvious concert with the other.
This is only relevant in joint defence issues such as defence of each one, SLOC and joint strategic interests.
It has nothing to do with independent ‘expeditionary’ military activity.

 

[ngatimozart]

That’s why I said the mutual defence treaty (or similar) would be required first. If we can establish the framework for dealing with combined threats then something like this could follow.

Given the expansion of China further into the South Pacific, a joint amphibious/patrol option could be a good first element to build on. This capability would provide AUS/NZ the ability to assist with disaster relief as a combined force to build goodwill and influence in our area of the world. Just one example of joint ‘soft power’ that could easily be deployed.

Again the political agreements would have to come first.

It's a matter of sovereignty and neither NZ or Australia is going to cede any sovereignty to the other in such matters. It would be political suicide for a start.

 

[MrConservative]

What about more cooperation with Australia?

I’ve wondered if a cheaper option for the RNZAF would be to contribute to an extra squadron (or two) of F-35’s operated in cooperation with the RAAF. Flown as extra RAAF squadrons but the Australian government would allow NZ citizens to join the RAAF. The funding required from NZ would cover acquisition and on going costs of the aircraft. This way NZ wouldn’t have to recreate a fast jet training system and in house experience.

HOWEVER! This idea would have to be combined with a mutual defence treaty type of idea for two reasons;
1: to convince the NZ govt they would have access to the fighters in the event of a threat to them.
2: allow Aus to deploy the fighters to combat a threat to Aus eg the north, that also would threaten NZ (if Aus was defeated).

Important to note this sort of agreement would not allow things like the deployment to the Middle East of F/A-18’s without the specific approval of both governments.

Something like this could potentially be used for additional airlift capacity, naval amphibious ships or maritime patrol UAV’s as well.

Australia and NZ have a long history of cooperation in major conflicts and a regional threat to one country will affect the other. While there would be significant political challenges I think a level of cooperation or a combined pool of equipment could reduce some costs and provide a benefit for both sides.

There are bilateral instruments if carefully drafted in non mandatory language, i.e the use of 'should' rather than 'shall', that can give effect to mutual cooperation between nations that don't have to have the legal binding of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 in International Law. It could be an adjunct 'Memorandum of Cooperation' to the current CDR agreement.

The best approach to solve the problem you suggested, and one which gives both sides independence, would be how things actually existed in terms of policy understanding between the two countries in the past. For example up to DWP97 spoke of New Zealand working with Australia to effect strategic and operational weight, including the cooperation of acquiring mutual or complementary equipment to their mutual benefit. One can propound that the recent P-8A purchase by New Zealand is an example of the NZ Govt selecting a platform that adds to the cooperative strategic and operational weight of the ADF and NZDF, even though on a day to day basis the command and control of the P-8's rests with each countries respective Air Component Commander, as well as ongoing mutual cooperation continuing to exist in terms of training and supporting the platforms.

However, both countries can still exercise independent operational usage of their respective fleets to pursue their own national interests or policy goals. That said - that caveat is possibly in practice not entirely likely on the balance of probabilities to really create much dramas (The RAAF deploying some P-8's to Country X in the middle east and the RNZAF deciding not to is not a show stopper - in fact the strategic weight that New Zealand provides in that space can pick up the "local" slack one could argue anyway), and if an operational combat vignette under a UNSC CHP VII event was in order, it is likely that 5 Sqd RNZAF would come under the formal command remit of a RAAF led Air Task Force (Which if it is bigger and more complex than a Timor Leste event would be possibly subsumed itself under a US theatre level air command).

Because of the silo mentality that has built up over the last 20 years is not helping both nations in my view, a 'Memorandum of Cooperation' or series of MoC's that saw more emphasis from New Zealand in building back a greater degree of combat weight to both countries mutual security benefit would be a way forward - and to be honest is much needed. Back to the days of interdependence and back to the days of improved clarity. This Post CV19 world is a significant geo-political reset and both countries through necessity are going to have to move closer together (In fact are at present whereby PM's have been invited to virtually attend to respective cabinets ). So a MoC or further MoC's that could cover precise circumstances between the ADF and NZDF is very much needed.

 

[aviation_enthus]

There are bilateral instruments if carefully drafted in non mandatory language, i.e the use of 'should' rather than 'shall', that can give effect to mutual cooperation between nations that don't have to have the legal binding of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 in International Law. It could be an adjunct 'Memorandum of Cooperation' to the current CDR agreement.

The best approach to solve the problem you suggested, and one which gives both sides independence, would be how things actually existed in terms of policy understanding between the two countries in the past. For example up to DWP97 spoke of New Zealand working with Australia to effect strategic and operational weight, including the cooperation of acquiring mutual or complementary equipment to their mutual benefit. One can propound that the recent P-8A purchase by New Zealand is an example of the NZ Govt selecting a platform that adds to the cooperative strategic and operational weight of the ADF and NZDF, even though on a day to day basis the command and control of the P-8's rests with each countries respective Air Component Commander, as well as ongoing mutual cooperation continuing to exist in terms of training and supporting the platforms.

However, both countries can still exercise independent operational usage of their respective fleets to pursue their own national interests or policy goals. That said - that caveat is possibly in practice not entirely likely on the balance of probabilities to really create much dramas (The RAAF deploying some P-8's to Country X in the middle east and the RNZAF deciding not to is not a show stopper - in fact the strategic weight that New Zealand provides in that space can pick up the "local" slack one could argue anyway), and if an operational combat vignette under a UNSC CHP VII event was in order, it is likely that 5 Sqd RNZAF would come under the formal command remit of a RAAF led Air Task Force (Which if it is bigger and more complex than a Timor Leste event would be possibly subsumed itself under a US theatre level air command).

Because of the silo mentality that has built up over the last 20 years is not helping both nations in my view, a 'Memorandum of Cooperation' or series of MoC's that saw more emphasis from New Zealand in building back a greater degree of combat weight to both countries mutual security benefit would be a way forward - and to be honest is much needed. Back to the days of interdependence and back to the days of improved clarity. This Post CV19 world is a significant geo-political reset and both countries through necessity are going to have to move closer together (In fact are at present whereby PM's have been invited to virtually attend to respective cabinets ). So a MoC between the ADF and NZDF is very much needed.

Yes! This sort of thing is what I was alluding to. We don’t have to ‘give up sovereignty’ or hand over the keys to major defence assets to make it work. But like you said, in the past Aus & NZ have been closer at various levels of government. Airlines are a perfect example, you can operate under either countries rules in the other one. Also QF/VA can have an airline in NZ (but Air NZ can not operate domesticity in Aus, that option was removed). Also I’m pretty sure Australians can get access to government benefits in NZ but it doesn’t work going the other way.

I’m not arguing for NZ giving up sovereignty on fighter jets, just suggesting there could be a cheaper way that benefits both sides.

We have two similar countries with similar interests in our region. I’m suggesting that there may be a framework that could be created to allow a mutual benefit.

 

[MrConservative]

Yes! This sort of thing is what I was alluding to. We don’t have to ‘give up sovereignty’ or hand over the keys to major defence assets to make it work. But like you said, in the past Aus & NZ have been closer at various levels of government. Airlines are a perfect example, you can operate under either countries rules in the other one. Also QF/VA can have an airline in NZ (but Air NZ can not operate domesticity in Aus, that option was removed). Also I’m pretty sure Australians can get access to government benefits in NZ but it doesn’t work going the other way.

I’m not arguing for NZ giving up sovereignty on fighter jets, just suggesting there could be a cheaper way that benefits both sides.

We have two similar countries with similar interests in our region. I’m suggesting that there may be a framework that could be created to allow a mutual benefit.

Air NZ did operate in Australia via the known local branding of Ansett which for a while it owned and struggled with (Just like in NZ with Qantas via Jetstar brand is very much in a distant 2nd). Eventually, killed off after 9/11. NZ and Australia are still very close in a number of ways. And yes I agree that Kiwi's in Australia should not get benefits nor vice versa and that citizenship is a privilege and not a right. That said when Mr and Mrs Aussie come over to our ski resorts during the winter I don't mind our health system paying for their broken legs - it is just the cost of doing business and we are civilised compassionate people after all.

 

[spoz]

Um, that view on Ansett’s demise would not be shared in Australia, where ANZ are perceived as having asset stripped Ansett (particularly with regard to engines).

However, in the Defence environment Aust & NZ have worked together for decades (even when the US was isolating NZ), continue to do so and, so far as any normal assessment can be made, will continue to into the future. But that isnot the same as trying to set up some sort of joint sovereignty which, I’m afraid, has been
destined to failure since the early 20th century when NZ chose not to be part of the Australian federation.

 

[ngatimozart]

Um, that view on Ansett’s demise would not be shared in Australia, where ANZ are perceived as having asset stripped Ansett (particularly with regard to engines).

However, in the Defence environment Aust & NZ have worked together for decades (even when the US was isolating NZ), continue to do so and, so far as any normal assessment can be made, will continue to into the future. But that isnot the same as trying to set up some sort of joint sovereignty which, I’m afraid, has been
destined to failure since the early 20th century when NZ chose not to be part of the Australian federation.

Back in 1901 - 1902 NZ saw no advantage and many disadvantages of joining the Australian Federation. We were somewhat wealthier than Australia then which was debt ridden, and the then NZG didn't want to be paying those debts. That's how the NZ pollies and public saw it. Today I think most Kiwis do not see any advantage in joining the Australian Federation now for a variety of reasons. One is purely parochial, another would be cultural, and a very strong reason would be us losing our independence. We would only consider such a move if Australia consented to join NZ, becoming the West Island and being ruled from Wellington.

Yes, on the defence and security front we are close and I think there are areas within that where there is room for improvement, just like any arrangement. I think that the ADF could take advantage of NZs ability to launch satellites. Both nations have scientific, technical and research capabilities that could be used, however unfortunately NZ lags in that capacity because the pollies and bureaucrats don't necessarily see that type of investment as desirable.

Regarding Ansett's demise, I would suggest that your banks certainly more than make up for whatever Air NZ is alleged to have stripped out of Ansett. It works both ways.

 

[OldTex]

I think that the ADF could take advantage of NZs ability to launch satellites. Both nations have scientific, technical and research capabilities that could be used, however unfortunately NZ lags in that capacity because the pollies and bureaucrats don't necessarily see that type of investment as desirable.

As you suggest perhaps where NZ can add value is through the provision of launch services for small sats (SAR , ADS-B and AIS iimediately come to mind) from Mahia (and perhaps future Australian sites).
Between NZ Space Agency and Australian Space Agency there should be ample opportunities for sovereign satellite surveillance or earth observation capabilities to be developed and put into service. These capabilities would complement other broad area surveillance capabilities (Jindalee OTHR and future MQ-4 Triton), monitoring of respective EEZs as well as cueing maritime search and rescue under SOLAS obligations. This information would then be used to prioritize P-8 or other search and rescue assets to conduct localisation, verification and facilitate recovery in the event of rescue situation.

 

[ngatimozart]

As you suggest perhaps where NZ can add value is through the provision of launch services for small sats (SAR , ADS-B and AIS iimediately come to mind) from Mahia (and perhaps future Australian sites).
Between NZ Space Agency and Australian Space Agency there should be ample opportunities for sovereign satellite surveillance or earth observation capabilities to be developed and put into service. These capabilities would complement other broad area surveillance capabilities (Jindalee OTHR and future MQ-4 Triton), monitoring of respective EEZs as well as cueing maritime search and rescue under SOLAS obligations. This information would then be used to prioritize P-8 or other search and rescue assets to conduct localisation, verification and facilitate recovery in the event of rescue situation.

Another thing of interest along those lines, was a Kiwi - Dutch joint venture looking at basing themselves out of Oamaru airport with the intention of using a space plane for the proposes of launching and recovering satellites. They were going to test the concept first. Oamaru has several advantages in that it is at 45°S, is in an area with low air traffic, 3 hours by road from Christchurch, and is on the east coast of the South Island. Haven't heard much in the last few months, and the COVID-19 pandemic will have put a damper on things.

I think that another point that should be considered is that NZ has a thriving boat building industry, especially in using modern high performance laminated materials. That technology and expertise is something that both of our defence forces should look at leveraging off, as well as other technologies that both countries have.

 

[MrConservative]

Um, that view on Ansett’s demise would not be shared in Australia, where ANZ are perceived as having asset stripped Ansett (particularly with regard to engines).

And there is a counter view on the Air NZ side which is different. But unnecessary to elaborate further.

However, in the Defence environment Aust & NZ have worked together for decades (even when the US was isolating NZ), continue to do so and, so far as any normal assessment can be made, will continue to into the future. But that is not the same as trying to set up some sort of joint sovereignty which, I’m afraid, has been destined to failure since the early 20th century when NZ chose not to be part of the Australian federation.

Joint sovereignty is unworkable and unnecessary a point pretty much made clear in prior posts. And what does trans-tasman politics from 120 years ago have to do with the NZDF in the 3rd decade of the 21st Century.

 

[MrConservative]

Both nations have scientific, technical and research capabilities that could be used, however unfortunately NZ lags in that capacity because the pollies and bureaucrats don't necessarily see that type of investment as desirable.

Pollies and bureaucrats are not always useful or even necessary. As Rocketlab proves venture capital will fund viable commercial operations and R&D. In NZ and in OZ the space industry and the enacted legislation and agencies are primarily about commercial enterprise, and the governmental role is enabling the commercial, educational and legislative parameters to make it work, not building a mini Nasa down under. Rocketlab and the other niche aerospace enterprises that are emerging from the NZ space sector are certainly well ahead of the game in the scientific, technical and research side, do it here in NZ thanks to the mostly greenbacks from the very deep pockets of global equity.

 

[ngatimozart]

Pollies and bureaucrats are not always useful or even necessary. As Rocketlab proves venture capital will fund viable commercial operations and R&D. In NZ and in OZ the space industry and the enacted legislation and agencies are primarily about commercial enterprise, and the governmental role is enabling the commercial, educational and legislative parameters to make it work, not building a mini Nasa down under. Rocketlab and the other niche aerospace enterprises that are emerging from the NZ space sector are certainly well ahead of the game in the scientific, technical and research side, do it here in NZ thanks to the mostly greenbacks from the very deep pockets of global equity.

Yep, but I also think that the NZG has a significant part to play in this too. Many startups have to do go offshore for funding and end up being owned and operated offshore, which isn't good for NZ Inc and the retention of NZ STEM graduates in the country, as well as the associated IP. If the NZG was to decently fund R&D and help with startups in the technology sector, we would benefit from it in the long term.

 

[ngatimozart]

The budget is being released on Thursday. However the govt in its infinite wisdom has decided to ban all analysts from the pre budget lockup Not good enough. The excuse is the COVID-19 crisis, but does make one wonder what's in it that warrants such a move, because the spacing requirements could've been spread across 2 or 3 rooms if necessary.

Given the current govt's political flavoring I do not have much hope for NZDF, and if anything I suspect a funding cut, and the C-130J-30 acquisition postponed. However we won't know until Thursday afternoon.

 

[MrConservative]

The budget is being released on Thursday. However the govt in its infinite wisdom has decided to ban all analysts from the pre budget lockup Not good enough. The excuse is the COVID-19 crisis, but does make one wonder what's in it that warrants such a move, because the spacing requirements could've been spread across 2 or 3 rooms if necessary.

Given the current govt's political flavoring I do not have much hope for NZDF, and if anything I suspect a funding cut, and the C-130J-30 acquisition postponed. However we won't know until Thursday afternoon.

I would be very much surprised if they cut Defence and delay capabilities. They will borrow. Besides Winstone will turn on them and he is very good at the takedown and needs a popularist niche issue. Because I think that the next Black Swan event could be conflict.