NZDF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

11. Sweden’s CONOPS is littoral strike, using terrain masking for the RBS 15 to hit home. In contrast, NZ is surrounded by open water (and cannot apply littoral maritime strike CONOPS). With so many Swedish speaking sailors that are trained there, Singapore is intimately familiar with Sweden’s CONOPS for littoral strike and submarine warfare.

A minor quibble here. NZ could decide (very foolishly IMO) to rely upon a littoral maritime strike CONOPS, but in order to do so, this would essentially mean ceding to any potential aggressor all the approaches to NZ, and force the NZDF to wait until aggressor forces have already penetrated and are within reach of, if not already into NZ's home waters. From my POV this would be a slightly more aggressive NZ response, and about as appropriate as the Green Party's passive non-compliance defence policy plank in response to invasion.

What people need to start realizing, and unfortunately many still do not, is that NZ defence really needs to be a forward defence. Even waiting until hostile or potentially hostile forces are within the 200 n mile EEZ really it too late. By the time a force gets around to establishing itself in the NZ EEZ, it will already have had plenty of time and opportunity to apply pressure to or take control of vital SLOC chokepoints that have either direct impacts on NZ, or on NZ's crucial partners in trade and/or defence.

With that in mind, I am very much in favour of the NZDF expanding upon and/or rebuilding capabilities which are both directly useful for NZ, but also expand upon or are complementary to those of allied nations, and Australia in particular. With that in mind, I am somewhat less keen than others about the RNZAF re-raising an ACF. Not so much because I do not see a use for, or potential need, to have fast jet tac air with Kiwi roundels, but because of my assessment of the state of the NZDF overall. It becomes a question of priorities both in terms of what capabilities will be needed most, which would be needed soonest, etc.

My personal assessment of a Kiwi ACF is that it would be useful in expanding the security of NZ proper, provide opportunities for Kiwi forces to train with friendly air, as well as a OpFor for counter-air training, and provide a combat contingent which could be used to aide the defence of Australia in the event of an A-NZ activation of the ANZUS treaty. All good and worthy uses, but I suspect that the extra coin required to get back into the fast jet game (which would be significant, and required for a number of years) could be better spent by increasing the P-8A Poseidon buy, and/or bringing the start of the Frigate Replacement Programme forward by several years alongside a commitment to a 1:2 replacement for the ANZAC-class frigates.

 

[OPSSG]

.. By the time a force gets around to establishing itself in the NZ EEZ, it will already have had plenty of time and opportunity to apply pressure to or take control of vital SLOC chokepoints that have either direct impacts on NZ, or on NZ's crucial partners in trade and/or defence.

It should be in Wellington’s interests not only to diversify its economic relations away from an excessive dependence on China, it should also pay more attention to building security and improved defence relations with non-traditional security partners like Japan, India, and ASEAN’s ADMM Plus. Instead of being perpetually torn between security and trade paradigms and trying to avoid taking sides between powerful rivals, a more effective NZ diplomatic response would seem to lie in proactively facilitating trust building between the two superpowers.

IF NZDF is able to effectively modernise it naval forces, then NZ as a country can be see promoting a stronger voice for those middle and small nations (in supporting rule of law and supplying a man with a gun, in an area of potential conflict, like the South China Sea), who have a preference for less confrontational superpower relations would also be a useful and pragmatic step for NZ and one that might help to avoid the return of another Cold War era. BUT I am not optimistic, as NZ’s politicians, on the whole are sea blind.

With that in mind, I am very much in favour of the NZDF expanding upon and/or rebuilding capabilities which are both directly useful for NZ, but also expand upon or are complementary to those of allied nations, and Australia in particular.

Agreed.

With that in mind, I am somewhat less keen than others about the RNZAF re-raising an ACF. Not so much because I do not see a use for, or potential need, to have fast jet tac air with Kiwi roundels, but because of my assessment of the state of the NZDF overall. It becomes a question of priorities both in terms of what capabilities will be needed most, which would be needed soonest, etc.

My personal assessment of a Kiwi ACF is that it would be useful in expanding the security of NZ proper, provide opportunities for Kiwi forces to train with friendly air, as well as a OpFor for counter-air training, and provide a combat contingent which could be used to aide the defence of Australia in the event of an A-NZ activation of the ANZUS treaty.

Like you, I am pessimistic on the prospects of an ACF.

All good and worthy uses, but I suspect that the extra coin required to get back into the fast jet game (which would be significant, and required for a number of years) could be better spent by increasing the P-8A Poseidon buy, and/or bringing the start of the Frigate Replacement Programme forward by several years alongside a commitment to a 1:2 replacement for the ANZAC-class frigates.

Quantity has a quality of its own and I hope to see at least 3 frigates (if not 4), 1 more P-8A and 1 more C-130J acquired — to keep the modernisation momentum.

Technologically advanced ships take lots of time and treasure to deliver, and to deliver in numbers to the fleet reduces one-off engineering costs. In this respect, I hope that NZDF will at least consider the MRCV (to replace the Victory-class by 2030).

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1101325763146481664

A 8 to 9 vessel build will reduce costs for both countries (instead of 6).

 

[ren0312]

A minor quibble here. NZ could decide (very foolishly IMO) to rely upon a littoral maritime strike CONOPS, but in order to do so, this would essentially mean ceding to any potential aggressor all the approaches to NZ, and force the NZDF to wait until aggressor forces have already penetrated and are within reach of, if not already into NZ's home waters. From my POV this would be a slightly more aggressive NZ response, and about as appropriate as the Green Party's passive non-compliance defence policy plank in response to invasion.

What people need to start realizing, and unfortunately many still do not, is that NZ defence really needs to be a forward defence. Even waiting until hostile or potentially hostile forces are within the 200 n mile EEZ really it too late. By the time a force gets around to establishing itself in the NZ EEZ, it will already have had plenty of time and opportunity to apply pressure to or take control of vital SLOC chokepoints that have either direct impacts on NZ, or on NZ's crucial partners in trade and/or defence.

With that in mind, I am very much in favour of the NZDF expanding upon and/or rebuilding capabilities which are both directly useful for NZ, but also expand upon or are complementary to those of allied nations, and Australia in particular. With that in mind, I am somewhat less keen than others about the RNZAF re-raising an ACF. Not so much because I do not see a use for, or potential need, to have fast jet tac air with Kiwi roundels, but because of my assessment of the state of the NZDF overall. It becomes a question of priorities both in terms of what capabilities will be needed most, which would be needed soonest, etc.

My personal assessment of a Kiwi ACF is that it would be useful in expanding the security of NZ proper, provide opportunities for Kiwi forces to train with friendly air, as well as a OpFor for counter-air training, and provide a combat contingent which could be used to aide the defence of Australia in the event of an A-NZ activation of the ANZUS treaty. All good and worthy uses, but I suspect that the extra coin required to get back into the fast jet game (which would be significant, and required for a number of years) could be better spent by increasing the P-8A Poseidon buy, and/or bringing the start of the Frigate Replacement Programme forward by several years alongside a commitment to a 1:2 replacement for the ANZAC-class frigates.

Hypothetically, will not the most financially efficient layout, ignoring issues of national sovereignty, if 2 countries have a defence alliance, is for country A to field one branch, and for country B to field one branch, in order to maximize efficiency and avoid duplication and redundancies that will come from both countries operating the same branches? Like instead of each country having its own army and navy, one country will decide to have an army, and one army will decide to provide the navy, so each country will only specialize on a single branch where it has the competitive advantage, to use economic parlance. Like for example, if Germany and France have a defence alliance, Germany will provide the army, while France will provide the navy. This could make sense for an EU army. In the case of the Netherlands, it decided to get rid of its tanks, and just decided to join a German-Dutch tank battalion.

Or in New Zealand's case, as a novel idea, maybe someone has already suggested this at the end of the Cold War, maybe instead of having an armed forces, NZ can just pay a defence tax to Australia, in return for Australia guaranteeing by treaty, NZ's external security? This could avoid the redundancy and inefficiencies of both countries duplicating each other's defence capabilities. Or for Australia and New Zealand to operate a military under joint command, with New Zealand contributing an infantry brigade, or a helicopter squadron. Like the Franco-German brigade you have in Europe, or the previous proposal for the UK and France to share aircraft carriers, or Franco-British nuclear deterrent cooperation. The point is that if I am a policy maker, and I have to consider political as well as military realities, I may still prefer to have my own ACF from a standpoint of maintaining some degree of independence in military policy, although the militaries of both countries may have different views, but as I said before, I am also looking at things from a foreign policy and political point of view, rather than a purely military one.

@ren0312

Noting the responses to your comments, be very careful on how you react. You have been warned by long standing members and the moderators.

You have just spit balled a bunch of ideas without any justification or assessment of the probability or reality of such suggestions, despite the fact these would significant step changes. There is no evidence of any such consideration.

This is not a fantasy forum and what is discussed must be realistic in the current context.

Alexsa

 

[Redlands18]

Hypothetically, will not the most financially efficient layout, ignoring issues of national sovereignty, if 2 countries have a defence alliance, is for country A to field one branch, and for country B to field one branch, in order to maximize efficiency and avoid duplication and redundancies that will come from both countries operating the same branches? Like instead of each country having its own army and navy, one country will decide to have an army, and one army will decide to provide the navy, so each country will only specialize on a single branch where it has the competitive advantage, to use economic parlance. Like for example, if Germany and France have a defence alliance, Germany will provide the army, while France will provide the navy. This could make sense for an EU army. In the case of the Netherlands, it decided to get rid of its tanks, and just decided to join a German-Dutch tank battalion.

Or in New Zealand's case, as a novel idea, maybe someone has already suggested this at the end of the Cold War, maybe instead of having an armed forces, NZ can just pay a defence tax to Australia, in return for Australia guaranteeing by treaty, NZ's external security? This could avoid the redundancy and inefficiencies of both countries duplicating each other's defence capabilities. Or for Australia and New Zealand to operate a military under joint command, with New Zealand contributing an infantry brigade, or a helicopter squadron. Like the Franco-German brigade you have in Europe, or the previous proposal for the UK and France to share aircraft carriers, or Franco-British nuclear deterrent cooperation. The point is that if I am a policy maker, and I have to consider political as well as military realities, I may still prefer to have my own ACF from a standpoint of maintaining some degree of independence in military policy, although the militaries of both countries may have different views, but as I said before, I am also looking at things from a foreign policy and political point of view, rather than a purely military one.

Did you just suggest on this thread that NZ becomes an Australian Protectorate?
wow this should be interesting.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Or in New Zealand's case, as a novel idea, maybe someone has already suggested this at the end of the Cold War, maybe instead of having an armed forces, NZ can just pay a defence tax to Australia, in return for Australia guaranteeing by treaty, NZ's external security?

Errr, Ummmmm... wait, what... are you serious right now... I nearly speechless... I stuttered reading that...

If that ever did happen (which it won't) Aussie would probably ask for at least "2% of GDP" ... that would be just defense.. which seems fair. And any cut backs we make they so do they in their so called guarantee ...

Then we would still need to patrol our EEZ even just for fishery patrols, customs, and border, S&R, which would be an extra budget (which currently is part of the defence operational budget...) So we would still need a few OPV's and patrol aircraft even in a coast guard roll... which would be a separate budget from defence... so there is no saving... it would cost us more and spread the Aussie defence force pretty thin (even if it had kiwi personal and extra equipment).

We might as well spend that ourself to get the equipment and gear we need/want... so we can use the gear when we want and how we want, without having to ask them...

 

[ren0312]

View attachment 47956

Errr, Ummmmm... wait, what... are you serious right now... I nearly speechless... I stuttered reading that...

If that ever did happen (which it won't) Aussie would probably ask for at least "2% of GDP" ... that would be just defense.. which seems fair. And any cut backs we make they so do they in their so called guarantee ...

Then we would still need to patrol our EEZ even just for fishery patrols, customs, and border, S&R, which would be an extra budget (which currently is part of the defence operational budget...) So we would still need a few OPV's and patrol aircraft even in a coast guard roll... which would be a separate budget from defence... so there is no saving... it would cost us more and spread the Aussie defence force pretty thin (even if it had kiwi personal and extra equipment).

We well might as well spend that ourself to get the equipment and gear we need/want... so we can use the gear when we want and how we want, without having to ask them...

I am not being serious, more like a concept exercise. Or just trying to stretch out a point of logic. That said, I think some parts of the NZ establishment seemed to have seriously entertained outsourcing external defence to Australia and the US, maybe 20 or 15 years ago?

 

[ngatimozart]

I am not being serious, more like a concept exercise. Or just trying to stretch out a point of logic. That said, I think some parts of the NZ establishment seemed to have seriously entertained outsourcing external defence to Australia and the US, maybe 20 or 15 years ago?

They did not. It's a matter of sovereignty first and foremost above all else. Our political class are just to stingy to pay for defence because there are no votes in it for them.

I would be very careful where you go with this because you have 2 Moderators (not Kiwis) watching you very closely and they will not be impressed with your last 5 posts on this. I strongly suggest that you forget about this line of reasoning before they lose patience, especially Preceptor. If they don't I, or one of the other 2 Kiwi Moderators might.

 

[OPSSG]

Did you just suggest on this thread that NZ becomes an Australian Protectorate?
wow this should be interesting.

No worries; the Mod Team has noticed this.

View attachment 47956

Errr, Ummmmm... wait, what... are you serious right now... I nearly speechless... I stuttered reading that...

Warning points issued to ren0312.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Was there any point in the past 50 years or 60 years that Australia's and NZ's foreign policies majorly diverged from one another, which may affect the way they decide to utilize their equipment, or the places on the map where they will use it? Can not remember so well.

The Indian Ocean and the South China sea is their backyard... To the east a benign ally and north east pretty benign the pacific...

So Korean War, Vietnam War... pretty much in their backyard... either of those two wars could have gotten out of hand.

Now with China expanding into the Pacific, China could easily have a Naval base in PNG, or some other Pacific Nation if we are not careful... It may sound far fetch however, they have already made a deep harbour wharf big enough to take a carrier under the guise to attract cruise ships, no cruise ships have visited and now with Covid, none will for a while and they still have to make the repayments... If they fault on those payments... China says no problem, we will control the harbour for 50 years for payment... and before you know it a naval base.

Australia is trying to wake our sleeping pollies and get with the program... (I do believe it was one of the reasons the 20 Billion over 15 years was started and carried... and only time will tell where it goes from here)

thats why

 

[Rob c]

I hold the opinion that any aggression in the Australasian/ South Pacific region would likely involve both Australia and NZ at the same or similar times and that it would be likely that Australian forces would have more than enough to occupy them selves without having any spare ability to intervene to help NZ. From an NZ point of view, due to our location the concept of forward defence is not viable if we don't have a significant home home defence available as it would be to easy simply to go around the forward defence with a modest force to take NZ. This would be of great concern to Australia as it would endanger both air and sea routes to the Australian east coast. This is why I am an advocate to restoring an ACF as without that ability it is very difficult to cover the vast expanses of ocean to our north, east and south from both marine or airborne incursions. While forward defence is a very good concept but you must ensure that your rear is secure first or your aggressor will simply by pass that defence and go for your under protected rear something the Japanese were rather good at in WW2 and with modern capabilities would be some what easier to carry out today. We must keep in mind that the future forces that will drive aggression in the future will in all likelihood be a quest for resources and that the desired resources will first and foremost be food and fresh water. As I have pointed out previously is that an ACF has a far greater deterrent affect than just about anything else short of nuclear weapons and that deterrence should be our first option as we don't want to place our young men and women at unnecessary risk if this is avoidable. The other factor with an ACF is if you have to engage in combat an ACF places the fewest number of our young men and women at risk.
On the question of costs, we simply need to spend more on defence and if we wait to long until there is a direct threat it will always be too little too late.

 

[ASSAIL]

The Indian Ocean and the South China sea is their backyard... To the east a benign ally and north east pretty benign the pacific...

So Korean War, Vietnam War... pretty much in their backyard... either of those two wars could have gotten out of hand.

Now with China expanding into the Pacific, China could easily have a Naval base in PNG, or some other Pacific Nation if we are not careful... It may sound far fetch however, they have already made a deep harbour wharf big enough to take a carrier under the guise to attract cruise ships, no cruise ships have visited and now with Covid, none will for a while and they still have to make the repayments... If they fault on those payments... China says no problem, we will control the harbour for 50 years for payment... and before you know it a naval base.

Australia is trying to wake our sleeping pollies and get with the program... (I do believe it was one of the reasons the 20 Billion over 15 years was started and carried... and only time will tell where it goes from here)

thats why

In 2019 the Provincial Governor of Tulagi Is in the Solomon Islands leased the entire island to a Chinese fishing company.
This was subsequently challenged by the national government but I don’t know the current status.
It’s important because Tulagi has one of the best deep water ports in the region, it was THE major base for the US Solomons campaign in WW2, and it’s a small step from fishing port/airfield to a major military base via “honey trap” financing.
This is the classic example of strategic creep as practiced by the CCP and in my view much more significant (with particular relevance to NZ) than the latest Daru episode, a much less subtle and less flexible strategic undertaking.

Chinese Lease of Entire Island Is Deemed Illegal in Solomons (Published 2019)

 

[chis73]

If anyone is interested in a little light reading, the RNZN has released Vol 1. No.1 of their new 'Professional Journal of the Royal New Zealand Navy' (link). There was mention of this publication in the Navy Today magazine a month or two back, but then nothing - looks like it's finally been made public (it's dated December 2020). AIUI, it will be 2 issues a year. It's great when we can get Defence/NZDF to at least put out new ideas and fresh thinking in public once in a while - they should do it more often.

Chis73

 

[ren0312]

Well China may try to use New Zealand as a wedge against Australia, plus New Zealand's foreign policy at various times like during the Iraq war, or on the subject of American nuclear vessels visiting, had been more dovish and less pro-US than Australia's (New Zealand domestic politics has always seemed more center than Australia's, for example the protests against the A-4 acquisition during the 60s, or against American nuclear-powered vessels visiting NZ, NZ's participation in the Vietnam War was very controversial domestically as well), so their foreign policies have not always been in lockstep with one another since WW2, in the future, you may see NZ's and Australia's foreign policy stance on China diverge as well due to trade interests, with New Zealand less willing to take as hawkish a stance against China due to trade. Well that is the perception that you get based on what you seen on the news.

New Zealand urges Australia to 'show respect' to China

WELLINGTON: A senior New Zealand minister advised Australia to adopt his country's softly-softly approach to China on Thursday (Jan 28), a rare ...

www.channelnewsasia.com

New Zealand offers to mediate truce between Australia and China

www.9news.com.au

Australia-China divide forces New Zealand to 'straddle two worlds'

New foreign minister cuts her teeth as tensions -- and pressure to speak up -- build

asia.nikkei.com

 

[Redlands18]

Equipping the P-8s with torpedoes, JASSMs (if that can be done), and Harpoons may also be a good alternative. It should still be pretty easy to equip the ANZACs with Harpoons right?

The Anzacs are very tight for Top Weight allowance and the NZ Ships have diverged a fair way from the Australian Ships with a different Radar, CMS and.VLS system so whether they could be fitted with another major Weapon system is unknown. Harpoon is an ageing system at the end of its development life so something like NSM or RBS-15 Gungnir would be more likely anyway.
LRASM is being integrated into the P-8 so if NZ ever decided to go with a AShM for the P-8s that would be the most likely.

 

[Depot Dog]

I have read these posts and I find it sad New Zealand has sunk so low to be vassal state of China. Recently there was the ministers statement about Australia being kinder to China. Failure to ban huawei 5g equipment. Not supporting the 5 eyes statment condemning China interference of Hong Kong.
In these situations New Zealand needs to pull up its socks and work out where they want to be in this world and who its friends are.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

The Anzacs are very tight for Top Weight allowance and the NZ Ships have diverged a fair way from the Australian Ships with a different Radar, CMS and.VLS system so whether they could be fitted with another major Weapon system is unknown. Harpoon is an ageing system at the end of its development life so something like NSM or RBS-15 Gungnir would be more likely anyway.
LRASM is being integrated into the P-8 so if NZ ever decided to go with a AShM for the P-8s that would be the most likely.

Our ANZAC's are less on the top weight than the Aussie ANZAC's even after the refit taking out the Mk41 VLS and using the mushroom launcher for CAMM saved a bit of weight, and as far as I know (and read somewhere) they are still fitted for but not with and have the weight room/space available to bolt on.

I can't seeing happening to the ANZAC's but maybe the replacement frigates having some sort of ship borne AShM

with New Zealand less willing to take as hawkish a stance against China due to trade. Well that is the perception that you get based on what you seen on the news.

Old news... New Zealand has always tried to step the very fine line. However things are slowly changing and a lot of the public are very weary of the CCP not China's people just the CCP, there is a difference.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have read these posts and I find it sad New Zealand has sunk so low to be vassal state of China. Recently there was the ministers statement about Australia being kinder to China. Failure to ban huawei 5g equipment. Not supporting the 5 eyes statment condemning China interference of Hong Kong. In these situations New Zealand needs to pull up its socks and work out where they want to be in this world and who its friends are. You are showing your ignorance sunshine. The Huawei 5G was and is banned here. It didn't pass the GCSB Security muster. NZ was a signatory to the FVEY FORMIN statement on Hong Kong. The trade minister has been told to stick to trade and stay out of Foreign Affairs. Accusing NZ of being a vassal state of China is very close to trolling. I would not want to go there if I were you because trolls get instant bans and I am not a dedicated troll hunter.

 

[Gracie1234]

NZ has effectively banned Huawei 5G.

 

[ngatimozart]

Equipping the P-8s with torpedoes, JASSMs (if that can be done), and Harpoons may also be a good alternative. It should still be pretty easy to equip the ANZACs with Harpoons right?

You have been repeatedly told to read the rules and to read through the threads to inform yourself. You have been given a final warning by @OPSSG and the Moderators had come to the decision that if there was no improvement in your posting behaviour, you will be banned. Therefore you are banned for a period at the Moderators pleasure.

 

[Depot Dog]

You are showing your ignorance sunshine. The Huawei 5G was and is banned here. It didn't pass the GCSB Security muster. NZ was a signatory to the FVEY FORMIN statement on Hong Kong. The trade minister has been told to stick to trade and stay out of Foreign Affairs. Accusing NZ of being a vassal state of China is very close to trolling. I would not want to go there if I were you because trolls get instant bans and I am not a dedicated troll hunter.

I meant no offence. It was never my intent to send a trolling message. I don't know how or do a trolling message. I do try to support my message with fact. If my facts are wrong I stand corrected.