The Defence Review
The Government has announced terms of reference for the Defence Review. I have a proposal which I think will result in a better Defence Force. It is:
To abolish the Royal New Zealand Air Force as a seperate section of the the New Zealand Defence Force
I propose this with a sense of sadness. I think it was an appallingly bad decision for Labour to unilaterally (it was not in their policy and they did not consult on it) abolish the strike capability. If National had won in 2002 then it would have been possible to reverse that decision, but ny 2008 it is no longer possible – the pilots have all gone overseas etc.
So my point is that without the RNZAF having a strike capability, it is unnecessary to preserve it as a seperate section. The existing aircraft and helicopters should be transferred to the Army and Navy as appropriate.
It costs a lot to have your own section. I just don’t think you need all the costs and bureaucracy of a section whose job has sadly been downgraded to mainly transport. Are we going to one day have an Air Marshall and Air Vice Marshalls whose only experience was flying a Hercules?
This is not to denigrate any of the great officers of the RNZAF. I think moving them into the Army and Navy will result in better and mroe integrated opportunities for them. So what would I do with the current aircraft:
- Six Orions go to Navy as already used for maritime patrols – No 5 Squadron
- Five Seasprites also go to Navy, as they are used from frigates – No 6 Squadrom
- 14 Iroquois and Five Sioux (and future NH90 choppers) to Army – No 3 Squadron
- Five Hercules and Two 757s to Army – No 40 Squadron
- Five King Airs to Army – No 42 Squadron
Now I’m not a military expert and welcome feedback on the idea. The bottom line for me is that without a combat or strike capability, the Air Force has become more of a support role for the other sections, so it is best to recognise that reality.
Some people advocate not just going to two sections, but one. The idea is it would stop the infighting between the services. I’m not convinced we should go that far.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
This proposal shows a fundamental misconception about the role armed forces in New Zealand.
The true role of the armed forces is to provide a career path for junior officers, to allow senior officers to have fun with large toys, and to allow all members to feel a sense of identification with their military heroes. Your naive suggestion is therefore doomed to failure. Wise up!
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I agree with your idea DPF.
Are you floating this one as part of the defense force review announced yesterday to see what the ‘man on the street reaction” is?
Thinking it through, albeit briefly, I can’t see a down side.
The list above demonstrates that we have a Fleet Air Arm rather than an Air “force”. It is hard to find a compelling reason to maintain a seperate entity.
I think any argument will be solely from a perspective of tradition, which I’m sure would be acknowledged, respected and dealt with accordingly.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
You proposal carries all the weight of your military experience David.
Neither the Army nor the Navy are equiped to maintain the aircraft fleet or train crews and operate aircraft. They both currently operate a limited number of rotory wing with the support of the airforce.
I sugest you take a look at why the army air corps was disestablished before you try screwing with a functioning system.
I see nothing but a clusterfuck in waiting.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Aboloshing the completely useless defence forces (who the hell is going to attack us? Tonga? Nuie?) completely and replacing it with department based (e.g. MAF fisheries patrol boats or DoC S & R vehicles) units would make far more sense.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Better still, we could offer to merge our defense forces with those of Australia and have Australian strike aircraft based here.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Hell why stop there. Since our SAS do so well, why not have one defence force and call it the New Zealand Marine Corps. Buy some decent squad weapons, base our arrangement of troops on the US model and deploy to every hotspot in the world.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I think the best idea would be to fold the Army into the Air Force and Navy.
If we are serious about our defense rather than doing UN stuff then we should be protecting our resources such as fish, against outside interests – especially those busy in the Pacific at the moment, like China.
With the savings from dispanding the Army and selling the LAV’s etc the Air Force could get some sort of strike capability and the SAS could be expanded, and the Navy could get some more boats and a Marine Force (as in the Marines). Both those forces could also work in with our allies where needed.
Let’s face it, the easiest way to get around NZ is by air or sea, these are the area’s we need to concentrate on. If we really got invaded, once anyone got on the ground here the Army would be so thinly spread it’d be pointless. Protecting our coastline, economic zone and airspace and the resources in it should be our priority. The Army doesn’t do this.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Tinman has the best suggestion.
We may even free up some money for policing and (DPF’s favourite) hip operations.
Why not go even further and privatise not just the bases, but the whole lot? lots of mercenaries out there, ghurkas, blackwater, etc./ Fits nicely with NACTional policy, too.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
If we stopped wasting money on so many failed social experiments (like the TOW Tribunal for a timely example) we could easily afford the kind of defence force that would allow us to carry our share of the global defence responsibility.
Singapore has a fully functioning well equipped defence force with an airforce.
Why can’t NZ, with equal population and equal workforce, have the same??
That said, we’ll never get to that stage until we first defeat the enemy within, the much greater threat right now than any external evil.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
An interesting view advocating NZ concentrate long term on naval and air defence was on Radio NZ today.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/0006/1924584/ntn-20090422-0908-NZ_defence_review-m048.asx
Further on GoodGod’s post at 12.33…
Someone already (NZ First’s Ron Marks?) has already suggested we turn our army into something like the Royal Marines, who I think have the equivalent of four commando battalions, one of them specialising in nuclear facility and Royal Navy ship defence, plus a Special Forces unit about the size of the NZ SAS, plus seconded artillery and support units.
The Royal Navy and its Royal Fleet Auxiliary semi-civilian arm provide amphibious assault ships that can land them, and the RAF supplies transport helicopters and assault planes and helicopters.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
If we let the US back in to our ports, Jack5, we could attach to their existing transportation infrastructure. As long as we were actually good at it, I doubt they’d have a beef with that at all. The biggest problem is that these ideas are sold as cost cutting and organisational measures when really they are motivated by the ideaistic need to stop our defence forces killing people. Which is their job. Arranging our troops into a more efficient killing machine has got to be cheaper in the long run. Whether we make use of the Brits or the US it doesn’t matter. NZ doesn’t go to war on it’s own strength, it never will. We need allies.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
DPF, I think the best starting point would be to have a sensible discussion about the role of our Defence Forces, and only then move to looking at the best appropriate force structure and equipment. I hope that’ll be a big part of the discussion document they’re saying will come next month.
New Zealand is an oddball defence-wise in that there’s no meaningful threat to our own country. In that regard our number 1 defence is the “tyranny of distance” – maybe God really is defending New Zealand!
So our military has primarily been an expeditionary force, training in New Zealand but serving overseas in what are mainly other peoples’ wars. Given that, perhaps a big part of the new White Paper could be a deep look at the policy frameworks for when and why we commit our forces overseas, and on what terms.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
This will be an interesting exercise, one which gets repeated every 10 years or so. NZ defence policy is usually based on the premise that a threat in our region would take some time to eventuate (say 10 years) and so we will have time to re-equip and train for the ‘new’ threat.
The blind spot is of course a threat that eventuates in say 2 years. An example – Large Northern Hemisphere nation with many millions of starving people decides that our fisheries are better in their hands than ours. So a fishing fleet is sent down, protected by a large naval force. We can’t stop them. We get no help from our friends. Example 2 – a large energy dependant northern hemispherre nation decides that the last reserves of oil are in the Antarctic, but needs a staging base for logisitic reasons. Bye bye Christchurch. We can’t stop them.
These ‘examples’ could occur next week – without warning.
Look at modern military history. The key to success has since WW1 been air superiority. So to defend our nation, and its resources we need systems that will defeat enemy air. For NZ we need fighter aircraft, anti ship/aircraft carrier missiles, and land based systems.
Once we have air superiority then we use our strike capacity (or the threat of a strike capacity) to send the enemy home.
But to be a threat they must be credible, with physical assets, and used in training/operations on a continuous basis, with plenty of ammo in storage.
We could develop a domestic arms industry (similar to the Israel model) to provide jobs, exports, and technology transfer.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Well I can provide all the cruise missiles the government might need to establish a useful defense/offense capability.
And you can’t beat the price!
Now that miss “Peacenik Clark” has gone, perhaps the new administration will see that there is real potential for NZ to develop at least a little self-sufficiency in the area of defense technology. Hell, we’ve got some of the world’s leading GPS technology being made here, a guy somewhere that makes grenades purchased by other military forces all around the world and this idiot in Tokoroa who builds cruise missiles in his garage for US$5K a pop.
What more could we need?
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I’d actually keep the air force, with a few minor modifications, add two new squadrons, one for Reconnaissance drones, the other for strike drones. In other words skip a piloted strike force completely & go for he of strike forces, combined with a mixture of manned & unmanned Reconnaissance.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
The suggestions by DPF are too simplistic and based only on your perception of the threat as at the “now”. What must be maintained is an infrastructure of a command chain that can absorb an expansion should a major threat arise. i.e. a third world war type scenario. Having said that I agree that the current defence force structure is based on some old traditions of divisional deployments with some so called rapid deployment cababilities thrown in. Having been a part of several defence reviews the systems are usually hi-jacked by vested interests within the services who write the plan to suit their particular wish list of toys. Any review must be based on a clean sheet of paper and on the threat that we are being called upon to meet whether here at home or abroad. The last 2 reviews were based on the threat as seen from a Pacific point of view and yet our deployments apart from the Solomons and Timor Liste have been everywhere but. This one will go as wrong as all the others – confined to history because in the end it comes down to cost and therefore cutting the cloth to fit. We will end up with long shorts or short long trousers neither of which will be appropriate.
In the end a nation gets the capability it deserves by virtue the attitude of it’s people and whether they will politically allow their politicians to address the issues fully and therefore be prepared to pay the cost. The old adage will come out as to the number of hip ops we could get for a Rapier rocket.
Only when the threat is looming over the horison in the form of a direct threat be it a conventional force or a terror attack internally will the public refocus on this issue. In the meantime it will be a cinderella force, as usual, that is reliant on the integrity and fantastic capabilities and resourcefulness of it’s members. Thank heavens we still have individual service people who work hard to make whatever they have work for us. Politicians of any colour will not respond until we are at risk. Risk management is not at the top of their list. Even Kieth Locke will shut up and fight if someone attacks his home with the intent of killing him and his way of life.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I have a better idea, why don’t we just invest in a strike wing for the airforce, i completely agree with LC, without a strike wing capable of providing air support you really limit your options.
also, edit is back, fucking win
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Actually genocide jack tinman is full of crap.
Who the hell do you think patrols out economic zone and minimisies foriegn poaching our our resources, plucks rich prick yatchies from a watery end to their excursions, an air mobile capability to our military on their many deployments (usually in disaster relief) both within New Zealand and outside it, provides and air lift capability to find dumass tourists who mistake our rain forest jungle for happy firendly pixie land and they also directly employ several thousand people and provide assoicated training for staff without which Air New Zealand would ahve come to bloody halt before outsourcing to China.
All this on a budget that would run the Vatican Citys defence for about 3 weeks and our social welfare for about 24 hours and inland revenue for about 23 minutes.
You want “useless” look a little closer to home
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
It’s not a bad thing that you are looking for savings, David, but before you go changing everything, perhaps it would be wise to try and quantify exactly what those savings would be. Esprit de corps is real. The services do have different organisational cultures and each does like to be led by their own. Right now, the biggest threat to each of the services is retention. Huge amounts of talent keep walking out the door every year. If you abolish the air force, how much worse would your retention problem become and would that be worse than any perceived savings? I think it could be.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
FWIW …
First, I hope this review puts some serious thought into how much we should be spending on Defence. Personally I think we should be increasing our defence spend to be in line with the OECD averages. Yes, that may have to come at the expense of some other areas of spending, but defence should be a “tier 1″ priority for any Government (along with justice, law & order, border control and recording/authorising citizenship) and so its needs should rightly trump “tier 2″ spends like health, education, social services and certainly rank far ahead of things like womens affairs.
Second, I think we should only focus on areas where we can reasonably afford to buy & operate a critical mass of equipment that’s no more than 1 generation behind the worlds best. That will crystallise a lot of tough purchasing decisions – for example, we probably have more important needs than committing $2 billion plus into a strike air force (lifetime cost). That amount of money would buy us a lot more capabilities that we can use more often.
Third, given we’re going to mainly on expeditionary deployments then we should focus heavily on our ability to integrate tightly with our likely allies (ie other Western militaries). So we should synchronise our structuring, procurement etc much more closely with countries like Australia and the UK. That’ll improve our interoperability and get us (and them) economies of scale.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Funny this subject should come up as Wee Johnny just asked me if we have a strike Air Force that can blow things to smithereens after he viewed the movie Top Gun. I said, no Johnny sadly the mad witch took our Skyhawks away so they can rot in a shed. He said, what a bitch, because I wanted to be an Air Force pilot.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
You don’t cancel your insurance because your house isn’t on fire and I don’t think you cut your defence because no one is invading you today.
I’m pretty sure there is a fair amount of fat in the structures but Air Force is a specialised area and Navy and Army wouldnt be as good. Don’t write off the ability to rebuild strike capability, there are tons of kiwis serving overseas who could form the nucleus of a new force.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Our defence forces have very little to do apart from their good work in search & rescue type deals and the odd bit of peacekeeping in the pacific and just about anybody who thinks otherwise is either a nutcase like murray who fantasizes about conflicts that’ll never happen, or those living off the taxpayer to play round with expensive murder machines and hope one day to get to use them to blow up brown or yellow people (murray?). Keeping troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan would be a good way to save a bit of money as well.
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Hey Dad,4justice as well – when exactly would we have used those planes, or the old american ones wayne mapp was so keen to spend heaps of cash on from the states? I’m having a hard time thinking of a single time within the past decade they would’ve been useful, except to pay for a handful of pilots to play round with at the expense of the taxpayer
Bit like dole bludging, except they don’t really contribute anything at the end of it really.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
DPF … coming back to your original post about what you’d do with the Air Force if you were king for the day. If you assume the next 20 years of NZDF deployments are going to be broadly similar to the last 20 years (so no major global conflicts, but lots of regional ones and peacekeeping stuff) then my take is:
We need an Air Force that can:
1. Transport a lot of Army kit & personnel, reliably, and over long distances.
2. Transport a lot of Army kit & personnel, rapidly over short distances (like less than 300km at a time),
3. Provide a helicopter force for the Navy,
4. Patrol our maritime air space,
5. Help with Search & Rescue, disaster relief etc,
6. Support deployments in the field and on ships.
We don’t need, and can’t afford, the fast-moving strike aircraft. Their lifetime costs are enormous, and to operate them you also have to invest heavily in AWACs, in-flight refuelling planes, trainers etc. They have no use at all in New Zealand, and it’s just not practical to deploy them anywhere – it’d take months to setup a meaningful deployment to a hostile setting, and they’re notoriously hard to interoperate with anyone. We’re dreaming if we think they make sense for NZ.
What we could meaningfully do though is merge the helicopter fleets into the Army to form something very like the US’s Marine Expeditionary Units. We should be buying a lot more transport helicopters, as well as light and attack helicopters, so we could have very mobile Army units. In a hot war they’d need to operate with someone else’s air superiority, but that’s going to be the case with all our deployments anyway.
Like you I’d merge the maritime capability into the Navy. But then, there’s a whole other question about how much you invest in naval ships vs coast guard ships …
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
DPF, axe the air force at your own peril. Is about as blunt as I can put it.
If you’re going to axe 1 arm of the defence force then you need to axe them all, and have a NZ Defence forces model, like the Canadians have, where it is a true joint command and control structure, and all ‘head office’ type activities aren’t doubled or tripled up on.
The Army needs to become a more amphibious type force ( like the marines), as its the only way its going to get ashore in any reality, and it doesn’t have the mass to be an effective pure army. It would also add capabilities to them. It also needs new artillery and area defence type weapons. Maybe also increase their intelligence gathering capability with more small UAV’s. And get rid of say 30 of the lavs, we have to many unless they’re planning on dramatically increasing the army at the expensive of the other services, which is what happened last time & i’m worried about happening again.
The Navy needs to get a proper replacement Canterbury type ship, one that is built to do the job, not built to a tight budget at the cost of doing the job it needs to. The Aussies are about to build new landing ships/amphibious ships, we could buy one off them.
The frigates can be kept, but need major upgrades, or alternatively, we buy 3-6 large Corvette sized ships like the Swedish Visby class that are multi role, and can do surface, anti-mine, anti-sub, and anti-air, as well as limited special forces insertion. It doesn’t need to be Stealth like the Visby class ships, but it wouldn’t hurt. It needs to be slightly larger than the Visby to hanger a helicopter.
Navy also needs to replace the endevour replenishment ship soonish I believe, but that can be a modified commercial design, or even leased. We should keep the Patrol ships we have just got of course.
The Airforce needs to replace the hercs, I here we’re interested in buying the A400M transport, but its way behind schedule, and over weight, and not meeting spec, can’t carry an armoured vehicle at the moment. So we should buy about 8-10 C130-30J’s which is the new Herc with the stretch in it to carry more load, and fuel. or 5-6 of those and 5 or so smaller C-27A’s which are a smaller transport that can land on shorter runways, and is less expensive, fill the role we used to use the Andovers for. Local NZ stuff, and training. The aussies are about to buy some of these too, so we could buy with them and get a discount. Also could be used for limited maritime search duties, in coastal waters.
The P-3’s should be replaced by UAV’s 10+ depending on size and specs, and 4-5 of the smaller maritime patrol craft on offer based on turboprop passenger aircraft.
Maybe a few extra NH-90’s if the army goes to a marine type force, if we can get them at a decent price.
Also UCAV’s (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles), of the same of similar size/style as the maritime patrol UAV’s (which could also be armed), one of the proven technology designs.
Then we’d have a decent armed forces with the right posture, can still do peacekeeping like we do now, but with better capabilities, and we can protect our economic zone, and low level combat if we ever need to.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
How many millions were spent on those stupid LAV’s that sit in a shed gathering dust?. Perhaps we can wield wings on to them, God knows they may generate enough speed to take off if they are pushed over a cliff The people who pushed these heaps of shit need a serious arse kicking. For fucks sake NZ must settle on an a defence plan and stick to it. It’s obvious the brain dead socialists had no idea.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Sigh. The Skyhawks were a joke. They were the equivalent of Brewster Buffalos. We sent a Squadron of these to be shot down by Zeroes in WWII. I think they achieved one kill in return. Unsurprisingly, they haven’t made it into the official RNZAF Wikipage, although I rather think that is regrettable given pilots died in them, fighting for New Zealand.
The Skyhawks were not a military asset. They were old warhorses, out on parade. They first came into service in 1954! We had no capacity to deploy them outside of New Zealand (unless the Aussies invited us), and they would have been SAM fodder for any invading force. A single Mig-29 could have defeated all of them. The fact that the defence establishment was so keen on a 50 year old aircraft is an indictment on the objectives of that establishment.
Of course then there were the Aeoromacchi trainers, bought to enhance our capability. Yet another procurement disaster. I wouldn’t trust the defence procurement team to find their arse with both hands, let alone rebuild some mythical ’strike’ capacity.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Frankly I am sick of review after review on TOR that ignore that fact that at under 1% of GDP being spent on defence we are freeloading. Defence reviews are akin to shifting the chairs on the Titanic. ‘Doing more with less’ is, eventually, going to get people killed.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
With this review I do hope that our ‘glorious media’ actually take the time to actually research this subject for once in their existence. Kathryn Ryan on nine to noon today was atrocious for her lack of strategic grasp, fortunatly Dr Lance Beath has a competent grasp of affairs allthough I dont agree with him on everything, such as the number of LAV’s.
One of the problems we have is roughly the same one as the media, a lack of understanding of why defence forces have the gear that they do. NZ is a nation that over the last forty odd years has resolutely tried to ignore the world beyond the south pacific outside of sport and trade, despite the fact that the balance of our standard of living is almost completely determined outside of the South Pacific to say nothing of our sovereignty and independence.
For example what happens if a hostile power dominates the south Asian region and takes a dislike to to our ‘independent’ foreign policy? Such a power does not need to invade us to strip us of independence, they just decline to trade with us and enforce compliance with that policy on its intimidated or even occupied client states. Not that we could take on such a power by ourselves, but it is a combination of free independent nations that can do this, and such nations must have the capacity to take useful independent forces to the fight and fight well, this is something that our forces were supposed to be able to do right up to the 1950’s, in the form of excellent ground forces, their home bases and ports protected from asymmetric threats locally by the navy, and Airforce after 1938 or so.
When one understands that our vital interests, beyond physical attack, are outside of our immediate region then such items as strike aircraft and frigates and minesweepers are understandable, they exist to keep the sealanes and ports clear of mines and commerce raiders such as submarines, for the shipping that our economy depends upon, to safe guard the troops we send overseas to defend those interests that we depend on as a nation.
Dr Lance Beath, on nine to noon, also correctly points out that resources, such as fisheries and fresh water, will be of increasing value in the future and not immune from depredation if we are unable to defend them in an increasingly populated world, this is fairly new issue for us in NZ and one that can only be met by the Navy and Airforce as we are an island nation.
Ads for some of the issues raised for this defence white paper, sell/lease back deal on defence property is fine so long as we realise that it would probably mean an increase in defence spending on facilities, the new owner wanting to make a profit. The issue of the LAV’s, what most do not realise is that most of them are not used, because we simply don’t have the people in the army who can maintain and service them, this was addressed by head of army in the armies publication earlier this year, and is obviously to do with armies retention and recruitment issues. I will also hope that people realise what the replacement of the Orion’s and C130 aircraft will cost, one for one replacement on all nine aircraft will be over two and a half billion dollars.
Wyane Mapp as wrong when he said defence spending “was about right” at 1% of GDP, the man must be taking Labour lite pills, defence will never increase its capacity for anything beyond what it is on that figure, but then National of recent decades is not an organisation known for understanding Defence, there is a reason why it used to be around 1.7-2% of GDP, because that’s the figure you need to maintain respectable capability.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I was going to mention the Brewster buffaloes Vibenna, that’s what happens when you don’t take defense seriously and think you can skimp on vital elements of your military forces. Conventional warfare requires all three arms of the military to work in cohesion providing support to each other, The Air force plays a vital role in this, having logistical and reconnaissance capability’s is not enough, it also needs the ability to project power.
In saying that, i wouldn’t trust any of the monkeys we call politicians today to modernize our military, the debacles will just come one after the other.
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
# side show bob (1341) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 1 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
How many millions were spent on those stupid LAV’s that sit in a shed gathering dust?. Perhaps we can wield wings on to them, God knows they may generate enough speed to take off if they are pushed over a cliff The people who pushed these heaps of shit need a serious arse kicking.
”
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the LAVs’s, other than the fact that we cannot maintain them, the problem we have is that LAVs are all we have, and that has to do with politics and budget. An effective army must have both wheeled and tracked combat vehicles because terrain and missions vary, look at our operations in Italy compared to North Africa in WW2 or South Africa in Angola a few decades ago, you need both types.
“For fucks sake NZ must settle on an a defence plan and stick to it. It’s obvious the brain dead socialists had no idea.”
Defence plans change according to situation, best example of that is the British army of 1914, a truly excellent force in terms of the quality of its soldiers and of its units, and one that was almost wiped out because it was a glorified colonial police force that could not prosecute a continental war untill after 1916…much like our army today.
But you are right about or socialists, no idea, their policy was entirely rational but based upon false and ideological premises that delivered a false outcome.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Probably worth noting that Mapp on Breakfast said that we have about 100 LAVs, which are fine, necessary vehicles, but perhaps are about 30 too many, as there is roughly that number in storage at the moment. Might sell them, but hard to say, will see what the Review says.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
# vibenna (44) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 1 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
The Skyhawks were not a military asset. They were old warhorses, out on parade. They first came into service in 1954! We had no capacity to deploy them outside of New Zealand (unless the Aussies invited us), and they would have been SAM fodder for any invading force. A single Mig-29 could have defeated all of them. The fact that the defence establishment was so keen on a 50 year old aircraft is an indictment on the objectives of that establishment.”
The A4k’s were for maritime strike in the South Pacific against minelayers and commerce raiders.
”
Of course then there were the Aeoromacchi trainers, bought to enhance our capability. Yet another procurement disaster. I wouldn’t trust the defence procurement team to find their arse with both hands, let alone rebuild some mythical ’strike’ capacity.
”
Lets try for some accuracy here, instead of irrational left wing propaganda. The trainers were purchased to provide the lead in for the Skyhawks eventual replacement, the F16, and where themselves the replacement for the old Strikemaster trainers that were the lead in for the Skyhawks, this is all publicly available information.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
The Skyhawks were not a military asset. They were old warhorses, out on parade. They first came into service in 1954! We had no capacity to deploy them outside of New Zealand (unless the Aussies invited us), and they would have been SAM fodder for any invading force. A single Mig-29 could have defeated all of them. The fact that the defence establishment was so keen on a 50 year old aircraft is an indictment on the objectives of that establishment.
The Skyhawks still had a useful ground attack capability. As you note, this was only useful where the opposition had little or no air defence capabilities, and ultimately it was decided that they were too expensive for that limited role. They were edging on obsolescence 15 years ago.
The defence forces currently have a well defined role based around limited engagement (Timor Leste etc., marine interception and support) and support to larger powers, and are equipped to fulfill that role. Labour spent heavily on defence acquisitions. Me, I’d change things completely, but would like to spell that out in detail rather than crib it down to a few words.
Hiring and retention is an issue, but this isn’t unique to NZ by any means. Just look at any other developed country.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
# stephen (2522) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Probably worth noting that Mapp on Breakfast said that we have about 100 LAVs, which are fine, necessary vehicles, but perhaps are about 30 too many, as there is roughly that number in storage at the moment. Might sell them, but hard to say, will see what the Review says.
”
There are not 30 too many, any less and we would not be able to sustain a units worth if they get sent overseas. People often forget that equipment wears out when deployed on service, especially war service and even in training, and if some end up getting destroyed, as they do in war, you don’t have the luxury of pulling the replacement out of thin air, and maintain enough in country for training. You must maintain some sort of attrition reserve to cover for these expected contingencies, anything less would be negligent.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
In East Timor piggy.
Where i know a lot of guys would have loved to have had a stike capability. Might have had one more come home if we had.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
For me (and I am not really, well, at all, qualified to debate what type of hardware we should have) it boils down to this – we are, and have been for some time, free loading off our mates when it comes to defence. It’s way past time for us to pay our fair share of our “freedom insurance”.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Good to see so many defence experts who got their skilz from commando comics and Saturday tv movies sharing their expertise with us today.
“It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I’m readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I’ll, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials – after the fact.”
Robert E. Lee, 1863
Of course Lee never met a blogger.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Just wondering what percentage of GDP we spend on defence & on the separate forces? A greater % of funding towards defence spending would be quite appropriate, I would think. Getting a strike force back is not a goer, there’s neither the will or, dare I say it, the means.
That’s right and probably the right use for a strike force in our region too. With the avionics upgrade in the nineties they were still a viable proposition for a decade or more. Probably leading up to the present day, if things had gone to plan we would probably have been looking at deliveries of the F-16’s about now.
My beef with the F-16 is that it wasn’t the correct aircraft for medium/low-level anti-shipping strikes. The F/A 18 C & D would have been a better bet or if I wanted to dream a little E’s & F’s!!
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
# MT_Tinman (216) 4 27 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Aboloshing the completely useless defence forces (who the hell is going to attack us? Tonga? Nuie?) completely and replacing it with department based (e.g. MAF fisheries patrol boats or DoC S & R vehicles) units would make far more sense.
”
You are aware that there is a world outside of the South Pacific, and it is that world that our economic fortunes, as a nation are dependent upon, right? Oh, did you ever think that one does not need to attack NZ directly to strip us of independence and sovereignty?
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“Might have had one more come home if we had.”
I don’t see how fancy jet planes would’ve saved the two troops who died in accidents there, or the two or three others who got shot in the back by non-uniformed militamen. Not really worth the billions of dollars people want to waste on things that are only useful for killing people
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Just one minor correction lads. When the RNZAF’s Skyhawks were operational they carried out regular deployments to Singapore for the purpose of exercising with the Singapore Air Force. Certainly annually. To get there they transitted through Australa and – I think – Indonesia. I also seem to remember that they operated with the Royal Australian Navy for a time to exercise that Navy’s anti-aircraft capability and deployed to Australia for that purpose. Aircraft can fly to places a long way away across the sea, y’know!!
Going back further, RNZAF Canberras operated from Singapore during the Malaysian Emergency (For those posters old enough to remember that!!) Look it up lads!
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
# Dazzaman (265) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
My beef with the F-16 is that it wasn’t the correct aircraft for medium/low-level anti-shipping strikes. The F/A 18 C & D would have been a better bet or if I wanted to dream a little E’s & F’s!!
”
If I recall correctly, the F16 was selected on effective combat radius and cost, the F18 series having a fairly short range but both being able to carry the same weapons. Gripen C/D was looked at but rejected on range and cost, iirc.
And yes, the F16’swould have been in full service by now had things gone to plan, but Mr Mapp and the national government of the time could not seem to articulate a rational reason for them, or defence forces as a whole, and don’t seem to have been able to do much better for the last nine years.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Who says we can’t rebuild the strike wing? We might not be about to have something tomorrow or next week, but all it takes is the balls to do it. The world is awash with cheap effective fighter jets – redundant Grippens the Swedes don’t need anymore – that would be ideal for us. Same deal with pilots – recruit some – train others. Before you know it we’ll be able to provide some air cover for the Army, Navy and nation.
The hundreds of millions pissed away on the LAVs is a prime example of the former government’s wooly thinking. Had a cheaper armoured vehicle been bought and in numbers we actually had crews for, the F-16s would have been easily affordable for the same money. But no – Helen had made her mind up.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
# Piggy (10) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“Might have had one more come home if we had.”
I don’t see how fancy jet planes would’ve saved the two troops who died in accidents there, or the two or three others who got shot in the back by non-uniformed militamen. Not really worth the billions of dollars people want to waste on things that are only useful for killing people
”
Neither you nor I where there, and certainly don’t have the training to make an a valid assessment on a context neither you or I know nothing about. So how would you know what close air support may or may not have been able to do?
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
how bout Key calls Obama:
“yo, we need some strike capability. can you guys train up a batch of pilots for us? also a bunch of dudes that can work on the planes etc. when ready, we will grab a bunch of F-16’s off ya”
“oh yeah, deliver them via giant aircraft carrier or any other nuclear powered vessel ya like!”
“catch ya later my ANZUS brother!”
DONE!
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
# Lawrence Hakiwai (30) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
The hundreds of millions pissed away on the LAVs is a prime example of the former government’s wooly thinking. Had a cheaper armoured vehicle been bought and in numbers we actually had crews for, the F-16s would have been easily affordable for the same money. But no – Helen had made her mind up.
”
The LAV purchase was actually something a certain section of army wanted and lobbied Labour for when they were still in opposition. The problem was that we did not replace the tracked APC’s and light tanks with something similar, and buy the LAVs as an additional capability as we really need both types. But Labour has never liked the forces and didnt want to spend the money, but that’s par for the course with them, but at least we got something out of them.
National did SFA for defence last time except cut its budget, and only tried some add hoc purchases when forced into it by a looming election, and did so without any policy justification other than what we had was worn out and we had always had a certain capability and should continue to do so.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“A Large Northern Hemisphere nation with many millions of starving people decides that our fisheries are better in their hands than ours. So a fishing fleet is sent down, protected by a large naval force. We can’t stop them”
Interesting, you do realise that there is only one nation on the planet with the navy and sealift resources to do that, it’s called the United States of America. If we are planning to be able to defend ourselves against them I would we buy a few of these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA
Backed up with some of these!
http://defense-update.com/products/s/su-34.htm
But seriously folks, if someone wanted our fish why not just buy it? We need a Navy of course and a credible land force for local use, however we cannot, and don’t need some world war three fighting military.
I’m sure we could pick them up for far less money than F16’s and they are at least a generation ahead of the Falcon (which was designed in the 1970’s)
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Oops, paragraphs got mixed up there, last one should be second last.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Vibenna, sigh!!!
The A4K’s weren’t duds at any stage of service! To equate them with the Brewster Buffalo, admittedly totally obsolescent BEFORE WWII, is being more then unkind. The A4K’s were pretty darn good at the role assigned to them and with their state of the art avionics upgrade were more then capable of doing what they were designated to do. A Skyhawk would never be put up against a modern fighter except maybe under dire circumstances. Although the level of skill of New Zealand pilots would not have made them easy beats either, just the fighters weaponry and accompanying avionics.
The MiG-29’s prowess in air combat is a bit of a myth. Fabulous manoeuvrablity but the AA-7 Archers don’t really offer a BVR edge. They’ve always come off second best against Western fighters and against the Su-27 in conflicts over Ethiopia & Eritrea.
Fuck, even tin-pot nations have better equipment then us!
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Gripen C/D
Incorrect, I doubt that was even operational at that time. Now though would be cool, hell evern the simulator would be cheap – those Swedes do the initial pilot training on a simulator not much more advanced than a PC!
The F16’s (A/B) were looked at for the reason that they were already there, sitting in a hanger at Amarc and all they needed was the specific alterations we requested and some very minor upgrades. They were very low hour jets that had been built for Pakistan and then embargoed when Pakistan started testing Nukes. Right now those same jets have been transfered to US service (I think as Navy agressors), if they are good enough for them, then they would have been good enough for us.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
sonic (2045) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Interesting, you do realise that there is only one nation on the planet with the navy and sealift resources to do that, it’s called the United States of America. If we are planning to be able to defend ourselves against them I would we buy a few of these”
Actually China can do this as demonstrated by its various world wide flag showing exercises, even to NZ, and its current anti-Piracy activities off Somalia, that’s in Africa btw. Plus they are building large LHD’s/LPD’s and are strongly believed to be planning to build big deck aircraft carriers, with the old Soviet carrier Varyag being their training vessel for carrier operations and sustainment practice. Its worth pointing out that big deck carriers have only one function, and that is power projection.
I wouldn’t recommend a Russian purchase either, not the most reliable planes around, and the running costs are reputed to be put the overall cost around that of a western plane anyway.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Dazzaman – you mean even other tinpot nations. I accept your authority on the MiG-29s, and I know I’m being bit mean to the Skyhawks. But it comes back to Stuart’s point above – nobody seems to have been able to articulate a rational reason for this air fighter capability. And they still can’t. What are going to do? Fire missiles into boat people? Buzz Japanese whaling fleets? It just doesn’t add up.
PS Stuart – yes I was talking about training capability, not combat capability. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. Always nice be written off as an irrational left winger though – it happens so rarely.
Heh.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Sorry to disrupt your America bashing sonic, but in the current state of our armed forces, anyone with a (singular) decently equipped frigate (ie with some antiship missiles and maybe some surface to air missiles to drive away our frigate helecopters) or better could destroy our navy. More than likely they wouldn’t even need to try. They just sit their warship between us and their fishing fleet. If we approach it our ships are destroyed. Please note that a lot of navies have at least one warship with antiship missiles. Not just America.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
evan (1429) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Gripen C/D
Incorrect, I doubt that was even operational at that time.”
Gripen C/D would have been operational by the time the Skyhawks would have been retired in 2005, which is why the Saab product was looked at.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Interesting, you do realise that there is only one nation on the planet with the navy and sealift resources to do that, it’s called the United States of America.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Take a gander at the Chinese Navy, you might be surprised at how far they are coming along.
If we are planning to be able to defend ourselves against them I would we buy a few of these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA
Russia only has a prototype. We might as well wait for the F-35, it will be operational much much sooner.
Backed up with some of these!
http://defense-update.com/products/s/su-34.htm
Now your talking!
I’m sure we could pick them up for far less money than F16’s and they are at least a generation ahead of the Falcon (which was designed in the 1970’s)
Ever heard of upgrades? A lot of European countries are still deploying F16’s that are the same block # as the ones we would have purchased – and they operate with the latest radars, missiles, a2g weaponry, etc.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
China Stuart? I don’t think so. Perhaps in 30 years but the world will be a very different place by then anyway.
Also Russian planes are, in general, far easier to maintain that US or European ones. Thats why they are first choice for places like India and Brazil.
Dazzaman, I would go for the Sukhoi PAK FA, only thing that can compete with a F22. We don’t have to stick with the AA7 either, we could supersize up to the AA-13 Arrow.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
vibenna (45) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Dazzaman – you mean even other tinpot nations. I accept your authority on the MiG-29s, and I know I’m being bit mean to the Skyhawks. But it comes back to Stuart’s point above – nobody seems to have been able to articulate a rational reason for this air fighter capability. And they still can’t. What are going to do? Fire missiles into boat people? Buzz Japanese whaling fleets? It just doesn’t add up.”
I can articulate a reason for them, and its easy to do (First articulated by the first Labour government as it happens), one just needs to be a bit realistic about the world, remember that the world is not the South Pacific and that invasion is not the only way to undermine a nations sovereignty and independence.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Paradigm, I ask again, why not just buy the fish? it would be cheaper than deploying your military.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
sonic (2046) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
China Stuart? I don’t think so. Perhaps in 30 years but the world will be a very different place by then anyway.”
Did you read what I wrote and was referring to about escorted fishing fleets? They can do that today and have demonstrated and are demonstrating it of the coast of Africa *right now!**. This is something thay are improving upon on a yearly basis.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“escorted fishing fleets?”
Seems a big effort for a few Tuna, especially as you can fish 90% of the Pacific and southern Ocean without needing any sort of escort.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
The A & B may not have had the range required but the C & D were/are pretty much within the ballpark with the F-16 range wise, plus two engines. The Super Hornet beats both, but was never going to be a goer financially. As for an articulate reason for F-16’s, there really wasn’t any unless we were going to change the focus to an air defence variant of some sort i.e. Interceptor or fighter. Probably only a reasonable case for our geographical situation for an interceptor, but only just. No, it should have been the F/A – 18. Proven naval aircraft, still formidable and Kiwi pilots (or are they Royal Air Force now) are as good as any going.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
# sonic (2047) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Paradigm, I ask again, why not just buy the fish? it would be cheaper than deploying your military.
”
Maybe they dont give a rats about our laws on fishing quota, and don’t want to pay because we cannot make them obey them without an air strike arm?. As for their running costs, its not that expensive for a large country to send a couple of destroyers and an oiler down this way.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
# sonic (2048) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“escorted fishing fleets?”
Seems a big effort for a few Tuna, especially as you can fish 90% of the Pacific and southern Ocean without needing any sort of escort.
”
A few? when they have fished out there own resources, and they will as they have no real catch limits like we do, it wont be a few, but fleets. If we threaten to enforce our laws with our two under armed frigates all they need to do is up the anti with a few properly armed destroyers with SSM’s, which our ships cannot defend against (Phalanx cannot effectively deal with supersonic missiles and we would have only limited ability with ESSM, the likely SAM system we would have against numerous targets).
We face two choices then, fight and loose both ships and crews or back down, either way we will be humiliated. We could hope that the US or Aussie might help, but even then that would be political humiliation if they do, for we will be revealed well and truly as bludgers of the first order.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Gripen C/D would have been operational by the time the Skyhawks would have been retired in 2005, which is why the Saab product was looked at.
Define looked at. Is it in any defense review or white paper? Or did some MOD desk jockey look at some pics in Airforces Monthly and think corr, that would be cool eh bro?
I recall the White Paper I read a while ago, the aircraft looked at were the F16A/B and the F16C/D – cant recall a mention of any others, mind you it could have been after narrowing down the list a little.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
LOL, well yeah, I asked for that. I’m realistic, I’ll admit there will not be a resurrection of the strike wing, pity but there we go.
OK Stuart, why don’t we pimp the air force out? We do with the other branches of the armed forces. Payment for services rendered from the USAF or RAF for instance, would be pretty attractive.
They do a sterling job even with successive governments (especially Labours) raping of the strike wing. After all, they are vital to our current operations, whatever anyone may think of them. Someone has to fly our troops, engineers, equipment to foreign hotspots where we have international obligations. Someone has to patrol our waters, perform SAR op’s, etc. It may as well be the air force.
You can bet your bottom dollar the army, and the navy for that matter, will address their own core issues ahead of any “air wing” that they may have attached. The navy will already know their own issues regarding naval aviation capabilities. It’s the army I worry about with regards to any “air wing”, inter-service rivalries are rife in all armed forces especially when the dosh gets doled out!
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Gripen C/D would have been operational by the time the Skyhawks would have been retired in 2005, which is why the Saab product was looked at.
Define looked at. Is it in any defense review or white paper? Or did some MOD desk jockey look at some pics in Airforces Monthly and think corr, that would be cool eh bro?
I recall the White Paper I read a while ago, the aircraft looked at were the F16A/B and the F16C/D – cant recall a mention of any others, mind you it could have been after narrowing down the list a little.”
It was looked at in the report by Sir Wilson Whineray, but iirc it was fairly superficial, given the terms of the proposed F16 deal and the capabilities of that aircraft.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Also Russian planes are, in general, far easier to maintain that US or European ones. Thats why they are first choice for places like India and Brazil.
I have never heard such crap in all my life. The reason they are the first choice of India is for one reason: Lack of sanctions – India doesnt want its arm supplier to tell it to F off if it goes to war with its neighbour. Also one thing about the India Flankers, they are full of French and Isreali avionics… What happened to the superior Russian equipment I wonder?
Brazil does not operate the Flanker yet, in the last procurement they chose a variant of the Mirage 2000. You may be thinking of Venezuala.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Dazzaman (268) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
OK Stuart, why don’t we pimp the air force out? ”
Because its not politically popular.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Stuart … yes, China has just deployed to ships to Somalia, but that’s their first ever serious blue-water deployment (beyond waving the flag stuff). In that regard their Navy is well behind Western naval capabilities. They are looking to build some carriers, but they’re not launched yet and they don’t have any established carrier aviation capability … both of which will take years and years to develop.
But, why would anyone (not just China) see the need to actually send that sort of force here? Although we can dream up scenarios of them wanting to come here to steal our fish/water/women/Trevor Mallard they’re all far-fetched scenarios that don’t have any real credibility.
They’re not credible from a military perspective … how would they secure long-term control of those resources? Not with ships. And they don’t have the capability to deliver & support the required manpower in a territory that would be even more hostile than Wainuiomata today.
And they’re certainly not credible from an economic perspective … our fish/water/women/Trevor Mallard could all be bought for far less than it would cost to send and support a military force here. Well, maybe not the women.
I think dreaming up Chinese bogey-men and their supposed ability and desire to invade New Zealand is crazy world stuff.
As I said earlier … New Zealand is under no direct military threat itself, hasn’t ever been (despite what people might think about the Japs in WWII), and is very very very unlikely to ever be in our lifetimes. Geopolitics ultimately boils down to geography. Our geography is strategically unimportant and is thousands of miles away from the nearest serious land mass. Those facts give us an immense amount of natural security that other countries do not have. And those facts should be recognised in any defence review & defence planning.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
we could supersize up to the AA-13 Arrow.
Still considered shit compared to the latest Amraam or Meteor.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Why are we quibbling over whether Gripens, F-16s or MiG 29s are best….compared with the nothing we have protecting our skies now thanks to Labour, a microlight carrying a bow and arrow would be better!
I agree there is no political will to bring back the strike wing – the need to keep pumping welfare into the middle class while paying the interest for student loans takes priority.
Thankfully the Aussies are between us and most of the bad guys and they got bombed so they’ll keep an air force that can actually exert force.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Bevan, go back and click the links, no-one mentioned the Flanker.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
“Our geography is strategically unimportant and is thousands of miles away from the nearest serious land mass.”
So are the Falkland Islands.
What’s that?
Oil??
Yeah well, maybe its still out there, just waiting to be found.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Of course not, but it should be done. A viable air force, whatever shape, is a definite asset to New Zealand. Are we viable? Yes, just. Although I’d prefer a strike wing of some kind, but….there’s that old wistful chestnut again. :sigh:
Crikey vitualmark the benign environment argument can change at the drop of a hat! The Chinese navy is a serious player, they have made significant inroads into South/Central American waters, are now looking to extend towards the Indian Ocean. Nothing, aside from the significant US presence in the Pacific would stop them from extending power towards our neck of the woods. Granted any carrier capability is still a long way off but that’s just the sort of occurrence any military strategist worth their salt would plan for. Your right in that geography plays a significant part in our defence thinking but to deny that we are threat-free, as you imply, is ultimately pissing into the wind.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Bevan, go back and click the links, no-one mentioned the Flanker.
Firstly, I was responding to your post that Russian planes were the first choice for India and Brazil – I was pointing out that Brazil doesnt operate Russian planes at all yet, and also the reason why India does – though it should also be added that India is very quickly trying to find a replacement for their widowmaker, the Mig 21..
Secondly, you mentioned Flankers, the Su34 you linked to is a derivative of the Su27 Flanker.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
# virtualmark (685) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating1 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Stuart … yes, China has just deployed to ships to Somalia, but that’s their first ever serious blue-water deployment (beyond waving the flag stuff). In that regard their Navy is well behind Western naval capabilities. They are looking to build some carriers, but they’re not launched yet and they don’t have any established carrier aviation capability … both of which will take years and years to develop.”
Which is why the defence review is supposed to look out to 35 years. The fact that China is actively planning such capability is one reason why you look long term, the perpetual short term thinking you seem to advocate is a sure fire way to get into trouble because you only see the trees, not the wood.
“But, why would anyone (not just China) see the need to actually send that sort of force here? Although we can dream up scenarios of them wanting to come here to steal our fish/water/women/Trevor Mallard they’re all far-fetched scenarios that don’t have any real credibility.”
Says who? at the risk of making an appeal to authority, Dr Lance Beath, of Victoria University, who specialises in such matters, does not seem to think its far fetched, why should I accept your opinion over his?. If a foreign nation has the capacity to do such things with impunity then sooner or later they might, and one should plan for that eventuality to ensure it does not occur.
”
They’re not credible from a military perspective”
Right, and what’s your rank in the armed forces that makes you a credible person to make that statement? There are, and have been, numerous studies coming out by qualified armed forces personnel who do think that China is gaining the capacity to be a credible threat and I will take their professional opinion over yours any day to say nothing of my own.
”
… how would they secure long-term control of those resources? Not with ships.”
They don’t need to..that’s the nature of seaborne operations when going after sea resources you only need local control, because fish live in the sea, remember?. Besides if there is nothing to challenge such an incursion then it does not matter if you have long term control or not, you can do as you please whenever you please.
” And they don’t have the capability to deliver & support the required manpower in a territory that would be even more hostile than Wainuiomata today.”
Ships don’t need to deliver manpower when escorting a fishing fleet, I would have thought that was obvious.
“And they’re certainly not credible from an economic perspective … our fish/water/women/Trevor Mallard could all be bought for far less than it would cost to send and support a military force here. Well, maybe not the women.”
That is contextual, especially since neither you nor I can see into the future its hardly a valid argument.
“I think dreaming up Chinese bogey-men and their supposed ability and desire to invade New Zealand is crazy world stuff.
As I said earlier … New Zealand is under no direct military threat itself, hasn’t ever been (despite what people might think about the Japs in WWII), and is very very very unlikely to ever be in our lifetimes.”
I never said that China would ever be invading NZ, it would be nice if you presented an honest argument over things I have said instead of presenting a series of highly dishonest strawman fallacies about things I have never said.
” Geopolitics ultimately boils down to geography. Our geography is strategically unimportant and is thousands of miles away from the nearest serious land mass. Those facts give us an immense amount of natural security that other countries do not have. And those facts should be recognised in any defence review & defence planning.”
Distance of threat means exactly jack shit when you cannot use it to your own advantage, the mere presence of Europeans in this country, to say nothing of German mines from both world wars, should prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I guess history is not your strong point either.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Why doesn’t NZ buy MiGs then? Or what about Harriers? Or the famed Eurofighter? A dozen of those would surely be cheaper than propping up the welfare system for a few days. While we’re at it why not buy some serious ships (New Zealand is a maritime country) and some subs (just for fun)?
I might point out that over here in Oz the F-111s and the F-18s make regular appearances at sporting events and are a hit. Australia must do something right, people here are much more patriotic than in NZ. They don’t all want to move to another country for one.
Bloody stop freeloading from Australia!
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Dazzaman (269) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
OK Stuart, why don’t we pimp the air force out? ”
Because its not politically popular.
Of course not, but it should be done. A viable air force, whatever shape, is a definite asset to New Zealand. Are we viable? Yes, just. Although I’d prefer a strike wing of some kind, but….there’s that old wistful chestnut again. :sigh:”*
Yes it should be done, a longer range transport to replace the C130’s and preferably three more to give us eight. Eight replacements for the P3’s but six is probably the best we can manage. We desperately need more transport helicopters, eight NH-90’s is not nearly enough even with the increase in capacity over the Iroquois, eight just wont cover for long term availability when maintenance and training are taken into account when they get older, and significantly more of the Augusta 109’s if they are to be used for utility and training work. This is especially true when the army operates in terrain that is not really suitable for combat vehicles like parts of Timor or Bamiyan Province in Afghanistan.
As for a new air strike arm I would imagine we would need a pair of squadrons, a small operational conversion unit and a reliable source of spare parts, not much more than what we have lost really.
Of course it wont happen soon or for a long long time so long a our political leaders are not entirely honest, or self delusional, about the how the world actually is, and the public and media remain too ignorant of such matters to challenge current political orthodoxy.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
lol great thread. our resident socialists think we should buy russian made planes.
that would be great for our relationship with the US.
and we wouldnt want to be flying the same type of planes as our biggest allies.. the US and Aussie. my god.
although the upside to buying Russian planes – Labour wanted to send russia 3 billion a year as a reward for having nuclear power, least this way we could still send the money, but get something back in return
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
New Zealand needs to stop looking at itself as a small country that’s geographically isolated and start realizing that we are the 10th largest country in the world when it comes to laying claim to an area of the planet, our good friends the Australians being the 3rd.
It is important in my view to look at the future possibility’s surrounding this fact, that between our two country’s we could hold the largest untapped reserves of metals and energy on the planet, it is unlikely the demand for metals and energy will shrink anytime soon and already we are seeing growth in the exploitation of these ocean resources.
In my opinion we can’t afford to neglect our military because it will be to the detriment of our future, we shouldn’t be discussing whether we can afford a strike wing, instead we should discuss how soon we can acquire one, we might live in a civilized world today but history shows us how quickly that can all fall apart.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
“the Su34 you linked to is a derivative of the Su27 Flanker.”
In the same way the B52 is a derivative of the B29?
Nice try, but would probably be best if you just read the links properly old chum,.
Still it is academic until someone can come up with a credible threat, so far the best we have is the Chinese carrying out out a multi-thousand mile naval operation s so it can steal fishes, I’d suggest that is not very likely.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I would imagine a strike arm too. Those spares, gotta have ‘em!
I don’t want to get into selecting what aircraft we should/shouldn’t have, I won’t get any paperwork done for the next five(?) hours. LOL
Ah stuff it, three C-17’s to carry the LAV’s to the dump, Four AH-64’s to knock over the Beehive & IRD, a B-2 to flatten Auckland central and start again and a C5 Galaxy in my backyard as a sleep-out for the kids.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
banana llama – well said. id just like to add that if we buy some kick ass jets… the whenuapai airshow would be cool again!!!
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
This solves all of our possible problems, the Dong Feng 21.
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die
We buy everything else from China after all.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Don’t know much do you sonic, the Su34 is far more a derivative of the Su27 then the B-52 ever was of the B-29! Tsk, tsk.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
according to wikipedia….
the SU34 – Developed from Sukhoi Su-27
as for the Sukhoi PAK – the thing hasn’t even flown yet.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Still not the same plane Dazza, Compare and contrast.
http://eldib.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/su27-01.jpg
http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/SU_34.jpg
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“as for the Sukhoi PAK – the thing hasn’t even flown yet.
hmmm
That one in the pic seems about to leave the ground. Anyway I say lets buy new not second hand US junk.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Stuart, I agree that the Defence Review has to take a long-term view, and I’m not advocating short-term thinking. But I am advocating realistic thinking.
Any scenario based on some unspecified country sending a military force to attack/invade/steal from New Zealand has to assume we have something (fish/water/whatever) that becomes incredibly valuable over the course of the next 35 years. So valuable that that unspecified country (a) can afford the military powerful enough to take it by force but (b) can’t afford to buy the fish/water/whatever commercially.
I don’t think there’s anything we have that’s going to get that valuable, and which we wouldn’t be prepared to trade. If you & Dr Beath think there is something that’ll get that valuable then you should be rushing out to corner the market in it. If you really think the fish **in our 200-mile zone, not international waters** are going to be that valuable then you should be buying shares in Sanford.
Just because a country has a military capability doesn’t mean that it is a threat to everyone on the planet. The sorts of scenarios you’re postulating are possible, but soooo remote that, pragmatically, we should defend ourselves against them by allying with someone who will always have enough power to stop those threats. Rather than buying a bunch of shiny toys on the small off-chance that maybe something might possibly get valuable so that perhaps someone might come here.
If you read back through my earlier posts I advocate greatly increasing Vote Defence. But I’d rather it went into stuff we’d actually use. Like raising defence salaries so that we can better retain our people. Fully staffing our two infantry battalions and raising a third. Equipping one of those with heavier armoured kit. Buying a bunch of mine-resistant vehicles. Getting command & control kit that’s interoperable with the US. etc etc. I think that’s more important than buying a bunch of fast movers that will do training flights around Ohakea for the next 30 years.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
sonic – the Sukhoi Pak is different to a Su-34
the SU-34 was introduced in 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA
the Pak will be introduced in 2015…
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
# sonic (2051) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
“the Su34 you linked to is a derivative of the Su27 Flanker.”
In the same way the B52 is a derivative of the B29?
Nice try, but would probably be best if you just read the links properly old chum,.
Still it is academic until someone can come up with a credible threat, so far the best we have is the Chinese carrying out out a multi-thousand mile naval operation s so it can steal fishes, I’d suggest that is not very likely.”
I would suggest you look to the example of both world wars, their reasons for happening, our involvement, and the outcome if the western allies had lost, but that would sail right over your head wouldn’t it?
I would even point out world wide increases in population, changing economic realities and the last time we had a multi polar political world, but you would ignore that too right?
That’s half the issue with your response above, you are seeing the world as you want it to be not the way that it is, and seem to lack the desire to look at facts and their potential to change existing realities, lest they challenge your closely held beliefs.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
# virtualmark (686) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating1 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Stuart, I agree that the Defence Review has to take a long-term view, and I’m not advocating short-term thinking. But I am advocating realistic thinking.”
snip
No you are not, you are advocating a planning regime that is based on contingencies we have faced for the last 18 odd years, that is to say you want to fight ‘the last war’.
Defence planning must take into account potential threats to a variety of factors that are important to a nation, which is why I have noticed that you have ignored my earlier posts on where our economic prosperity, standard of living are ultimately determined and through those factors the potential threat to our independence and sovereignty. Interestingly enough it was France who provide a good example of this when they blackmailed us over those two agents who were convicted for the bombing of Rainbow Warrior.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:34 pm
“I would suggest you look to the example of both world wars,”
Well that’s a different issue, I would agree that in WW2 the New Zealand army had a significant influence on the outcome of WW2, can you seriously imagine it would in any postulated WW3?
As a small nation far away, our best defence strategy is to avoid in so far as is possible, making any enemies. We have been getting good at that, why change it?
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
“as for the Sukhoi PAK – the thing hasn’t even flown yet.
hmmm
That one in the pic seems about to leave the ground. Anyway I say lets buy new not second hand US junk.
Sonic, you knob
The only pic you have posted of an aircraft about to leave the ground is of a Su34, not a Sukhoi PAK FA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34
Note the part where it says developed from the Su27.
The other pic is of an Su27 from a flight sim called Lo-Mac (awesome flight sim btw).
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I’ve gone beyond planes into missiles now anyway Bevan, thats what we need to stock up on to stop the Chinese fish stealing hordes!
Lets get 30 of these!
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
“Sonic, you knob The only pic you have posted of an aircraft about to leave the ground is of a Su34, not a Sukhoi PAK FA”
well he doesn’t know his arse from his elbow at the best of times – so why any different now?
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
With non-nuclear warheads I hasten to add.
SU 47 anyone?
http://www.clickngay.com/forum/showthread.php?p=993
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyjxqr4O4Ug
Total fighter porn
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Stuart … I ignored your previous comments about our economic prosperity & standard of living because I thought the things you’re talking about are not **directly** relevant to our defence spend, as opposed to our defence relationships.
I agree that our prosperity comes from international trade. But if from that you conclude that we should develop a military that can protect all of our global trading relationships then … welcome to the US military. The US’s military posture is all about projecting such immense power globally that it can secure its trading interests. But that’s just not a sensible model for New Zealand to follow. We don’t need to project power globally in the same way they do. And we simply can’t afford that sort of military presence (even scaled to our relative population).
You commented earlier about what if some malevolent country took over Southern Asia. Well. Yep, our trade with Southern Asia would be threatened. But our trade with the US, Europe etc might just have to take some different shipping routes. The global effects would hurt our prosperity (for example, oil would rocket in value). But I don’t see how we as New Zealand would be any more affected by such a development as other countries such as Australia, the US, Europe, Middle East etc. So on that basis, it’s hard to see how militarily we would respond with anything more than being a component of a larger force led by bigger nations. Much like we’ve done in Aghanistan for example.
Re my comments on geopolitics is all about geography. Yes it is. If you don’t get that then you don’t see the big picture. 4 million people in Singapore need to have a capable military because they’re closely surrounded by bigger countries and they sit astride the most important trading routes in the world. 4 million people in Ireland don’t need as capable a military as Singapore because although Europe has been the scene of most of the hot wars in the last 100 years Ireland is on the edge of that, and they’ve decided that neutrality is part of their defence posture because they can’t afford all the shiny toys. 4 million people in New Zealand are 1,200nm from the nearest meaningful land mass (which is a close ally), when the combat radius of modern attack aircraft is about 600nm. Geography is everything.
Re the French and their blackmail over the Rainbow Warriors. That was realpolitik. Unless we went along with the French they were going to fuck with our trade access to Europe. It wouldn’t have mattered what shiny toys we’d bought the NZDF, it just simply wasn’t a military problem.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
This solves all of our possible problems, the Dong Feng 21.
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die
We buy everything else from China after all.
According to that article, its a Mach 10 anti ship missile that has a 2000km range? This sounds much like the old Ruskie claim about Plasma Stealth – I call bullshit.
“The DF-21 is a two-stage, solid-fuel, medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) developed by the 2nd Aerospace Academy (now China Changfeng Mechanics and Electronics Technology Academy) in late 1970s. It was the first solid-fueled balletic missile deployed by the Second Artillery Corp. The missile carries a single 500 kT nuclear warhead, up to 1,800 km range. The DF-21 also served as the basis for the submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) JL-1 (CSS-N-3) [19], used on the XIA-Class SSBN. In 1996, an improved variant, the DF-21A, was introduced. Currently, an estimated 60-80 DF-21/DF-21A are in service. [20] [21]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongfeng_missile
Not even what the article describes. But hey, who would have thought Sonic would advocate that we purchase Nuclear missiles for our defense – thanks, but Id rather have a squadron of F16’s.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“With non-nuclear warheads I hasten to add.”
It’s a great pity we can’t drop a uranium gun-type device code-named “Little Sonic” to shut it up.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyjxqr4O4Ug
Tech demonstrator.
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
Iranian weaponry now? Your getting desperate Sonic – most Iranian claims to super weapons are nothing more than wild fantasies, they are easy to distingush as there is never a shread of proof.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
F16’s Bevan? are you that stuck in the 1980’s?
I bet you were happy when Spandau Ballet reformed!
I started with an American analyst Bevan, I’m only concerned with defending our fair land against the evil fish stealers.
I’m suggesting Russian fighters, chinese missiles and Japanese electronics. How many American devices do you have in your house mate?
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:06 pm
F16’s Bevan? are you that stuck in the 1980’s?
And that shows your stupidity, you lament 1980’s F16’s (forgetting it is one of the most upgraded aircraft of currently around – try researching the F16MLU, the C/D or the Block 60), yet you are promoting aircraft designed in the …. oh wait te Su27 which went into production in the 1980’s…..
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
Yeah, good luck getting that close enough to be launched.
I’m suggesting Russian fighters, chinese missiles and Japanese electronics. How many American devices do you have in your house mate?
Trying to divert to topic? Good luck with that.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
sonic – the yanks make the best planes. deal.
i guess we would be looking at F18’s now. Aussie just bought a bunch more to get them through the next few years. Waiting on the F35’s.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
http://www.marshallsystem.com/
I TOO AM SCARE FOR FISH! …..
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Bevan if I may ask, what car do you drive?
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
“I’m suggesting Russian fighters, chinese missiles and Japanese electronics. How many American devices do you have in your house mate?”
I can understand having Japanese electronics in your house, but maybe he’s got some Russian Cossacks under his bed?
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Cossacks under the bed Patrick?
You may be showing your age mate.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
# virtualmark (687) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating1 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Stuart … I ignored your previous comments about our economic prosperity & standard of living because I thought the things you’re talking about are not **directly** relevant to our defence spend, as opposed to our defence relationships.”**
They are directly related because those things have a direct impact on our independence as a nation if used to undermine our independence, this has happened before and there is always the potential for it to happen again.
**”I agree that our prosperity comes from international trade. But if from that you conclude that we should develop a military that can protect all of our global trading relationships then … welcome to the US military. The US’s military posture is all about projecting such immense power globally that it can secure its trading interests. But that’s just not a sensible model for New Zealand to follow. We don’t need to project power globally in the same way they do. And we simply can’t afford that sort of military presence (even scaled to our relative population).
**”
You are strawmanning me again, I have never suggested any such posture, I have suggested the forces have capacity to what we have had in the past.
**You commented earlier about what if some malevolent country took over Southern Asia. Well. Yep, our trade with Southern Asia would be threatened. But our trade with the US, Europe etc might just have to take some different shipping routes. The global effects would hurt our prosperity (for example, oil would rocket in value). But I don’t see how we as New Zealand would be any more affected by such a development as other countries such as Australia, the US, Europe, Middle East etc. So on that basis, it’s hard to see how militarily we would respond with anything more than being a component of a larger force led by bigger nations. Much like we’ve done in Aghanistan for example.**
Did it ever occur to you that to prevent the continuation of such practices the only way may be to fight, especially if other nations important to our prosperity are involved? and if that happens you need reasonably balanced armed forces much like the last two world wars, assuming a new one does not immediately go nuclear of course.
**Re my comments on geopolitics is all about geography. Yes it is. If you don’t get that then you don’t see the big picture. 4 million people in Singapore need to have a capable military because they’re closely surrounded by bigger countries and they sit astride the most important trading routes in the world. 4 million people in Ireland don’t need as capable a military as Singapore because although Europe has been the scene of most of the hot wars in the last 100 years Ireland is on the edge of that, and they’ve decided that neutrality is part of their defence posture because they can’t afford all the shiny toys. 4 million people in New Zealand are 1,200nm from the nearest meaningful land mass (which is a close ally), when the combat radius of modern attack aircraft is about 600nm. Geography is everything.**
re your comments on geography: I reiterate: favourable geography MEANS NOTHING IF YOU CANNOT USE IT TO YOUR OWN ADVANTAGE, if you cannot grasp this or grasp the presence of British forces fighting Maori in NZ in the latter half of the 19th century, or indeed the rise of the British Empire, then may I suggest Alfred Thayer Mahan’s book “The Influence of Seapower Upon History, 1660-1783″?
**
Re the French and their blackmail over the Rainbow Warriors. That was realpolitik. Unless we went along with the French they were going to fuck with our trade access to Europe. It wouldn’t have mattered what shiny toys we’d bought the NZDF, it just simply wasn’t a military problem.**
Concepts a bit much for you? If France can managed to influence our internal justice system once, did it ever occur to you that the same methods can be used to completely undermine our independence in its entirety by way of trade, its what the Japanese planned to do if they won WW2, indecently its similar to the methods used by Adolf Hitler pre 1939. The only way to prevent that is to stand up to it and that requires reasonably well balanced armed forces to counter raids on NZ as has happened in the past.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
This is a chuckle alright. David floats the idea of folding the RNZAF into the remaining two services and … in true Kiwi fashion people bring a lot of emotion into the discussion – from the utility of NZLAV to China. Back to the start then, its an interesting idea David and worth discussing further but first up, whats is your objective for doing this ? As I read it, and I may be wrong … you want a ‘better’ Defence Force and it seems you perceive a spin off from doing this could be saving some money ?
As I see it there is an imperative to ensure that duplication of Staff effort is minimised – and in all probability the first place that significant savings could be made is in streamlining the Single Service HQ’s. Then the issue of bases needs to be examined. Do we need three runways for the current size of the Air Fleet ? Do we need 4 (5 depending on your definition) Army bases ? Probably hard to justify unless the Voluntary National Service Scheme gains traction. Finally we could then take a look at the need for a separate service (RNZAF).
A decision to dis-establish a entire service is a significant one and it could / would impact on future generations. My initial feeling is that in order to make the Defence Force better and save some money there are other things that could be looked at before that.
Lastly I want to add my thoughts on NZLAV. There seems to be a lot of negativity about it and its difficult to understand exactly why. Do you object to NZ soldiers having protected mobility platforms available to them if deployed ? (surely not) Do you disagree with where they could be deployed ? (you are qualified how to make this assertion?) Or do you object to them because of the cost ? (the quantity cost or the individual cost ?). Do you have an issue about the type of platform purchased (what do you know that hundreds of qualified and experienced personnel involved in the project didnt ?)
It seems there are a lot of opinions but not a lot of experts and thats fine but getting emotional about it only makes you look immature and somewhat … foolish.
As anyone who has experience with large projects will surely confirm, a project of this magnitude would have considered the following factors when deciding how many NZLAV to purchase:
- How many could the NZ Army envision being operationally deployed at any one time ?
- Therefore how many would be needed back in NZ to prepare any rotational troops, and of course
- How many would also be required for ongoing NZ based training
As someone recently commented publicly and somewhat mischievously, that 40 could be sold from the fleet, what impact does that have on the ability to generate the capability, when it is needed ?
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Scrapping the F16 deal was yet another wasted opportunity by the failed Labour government.
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Stuart … actually I have a (well read) copy of Mahan’s book. I agree with his central idea that control of the sea is important militarily and politically (and he was of course an officer in the US Navy). If he were writing now rather than in the 1890’s he’d probably also add that control of the air is pretty important too. And space for that matter. But then, he didn’t have to pay for those toys.
Go back and read my posts at 1:13 and 1:40 this afternoon. My view is any defence review should start with asking (1) what direct military threats will we have to face alone, and (2) what military events will we be expected to contribute towards as part of a coalition, with that same coalition guaranteeing our security against unforeseen threats we can’t face ourselves.
The answer to question (1) is that we don’t face any today, and it’s very very hard to see any that will sensibly arise in the next 30 years. Talk about the Chinese sailing down here to steal fish from our 200-mile zone is fanciful.
The answer to question (2) is a foreign affairs policy question driven by geopolitics. It’s all about choosing who we want to ally with, what level of commitment we need to make as our part of that relationship, and what they’ll do for us if we’re under threat. Historically we’ve allied ourselves with the other English speaking nations. If we’re sensible we’ll reforge those relationships (personally I think this defence review is mainly to do with laying the groundwork for re-allying with the US).
New Zealand’s military history has primarily been as an expeditionary force fighting as a small component in our allies wars. Given our geography & size that’s our place in the world. Our force structure and equipment needs to reflect that.
So the question then becomes what is the best contribution we can make to those allied expeditions. In my post at 1:40 I said my opinion is we should only focus on areas where we can reasonably afford to buy & operate a critical mass of equipment that’s no more than 1 generation behind the worlds best. I’d argue that we can’t afford to play that game with strike aircraft, where critical mass would be about 25 aircraft (so we could sensibly deploy 10-12 at a time), where equipment that’s within 1 generation of the worlds best costs at least $100 million per unit lifetime costs, and where there’s enormous ancillary costs for training & support services.
And they’re a pain in the arse to deploy. Let’s say we’d got those Pakistani Block 15 F-16s. They’re a long way behind the current American spec (Block 50/52). I’m pretty sure they don’t support the current datalinks. I suspect they don’t support the latest munitions. Interoperability is bloody hard to maintain.
Likewise it’s hard to keep up with the investment required to have a meaningful naval contribution. The Anzac frigates are well meaning, but we only have 2 (arguably not enough to sustain continuous deployments overseas), and they’re poorly armed. Perhaps if we had several frigates/destroyers with meaningful anti-air and anti-ship capabilities. But realistically we can’t afford 4-5 DDGs.
I’d argue that we’re better focussing our contribution on things like specialist skills in our army. We could (and should IMO) have a 3-battalion army with training & skills as good as, say, the Royal Marines. We could make them highly mobile with good armoured vehicles, transport helicopters and attack helicopters. We could specialise a battalion in jungle warfare. Another in mountain warfare. etc etc. I think that’s the sort of military capability that our allies would value us bringing to the mix.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Gee, you don’t know much do you sonic, the Su-34 IS a derivative of the Su-27, though sufficiently different to be classed as it’s own design. Su-47 never got into production. I’m not surprised at your ignorance.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
I remember when I was a kid it was really cool that I had 3 or 4 mates with the same (Amiga) computer as my family did. It meant that our toys were compatible. It was unfortunate when some of our mates had a Nintendo or Sega or C64 – our toys weren’t compatible.
I’m sure we all agree that the New Zealand Government needs to buy toys, so maybe we should buy toys that are compatible (including spares) with our allies, primarily being Australia and the US. It would make it so much easier to fight if everyone has the same spares and takes the same fuel. So why debate which Russian or Chinese plane to buy, when the choice will be which American plane to buy?
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:23 pm
I am late to the thread but will be brief. The Defense review is long overdue and welcome. The terms of reference are Ok but the panel constituted to review submissions and make recommendations is a disappointment. I am also concerned that Wayne Mapp is a bit out of his depth and too obsequious to the NZDF and MoD brass to make the hard and critical choices NZ will need to make in the next few years. Although they disagree on some points, Stuart MacKey and Virtualmark seem to have the best grasp on this thread of what the realities are. I hope that they will offer public submissions, although I fear that the public submission process will be a whitewash on insider decision-making orchestrated by the above-mentioned brass who, however well-intentioned, may be too close to the subject to be objective.
My own opinion is to disagree with DPF on the original suggestion to disband the NZAF and incorporate it into the other services. His proposal is not without merit but the logistics make it impossible without high costs. As some here may remember, I believe that what NZDF needs is not a tactical “strike” wing but a robust close air support capability (CAS), preferably a mix of fixed wing and rotary, to accompany and support Army-led foreign “peace-keeping” operations and Navy-led (doh!) maritime interdiction within the EEZ. I am biased in favor of American designs being a Yank, and have affection for the A-10 (of which there are many in mothballs at Davis-Mothan AFB outside of Tucson AZ) as well as the Apache and Comanche gunships (since I know people in those communities), but also am aware that Russian attack helicopters are now first-rate platforms (I am not talking about Hinds).
I also think that a small country like NZ needs to prioritise joint force integration and interoperability, both within the NZ service branches as well as with allies and “friends.” What we do not need is more “counter-terrorism” and “anti-terrorist” units like that SAS lite branch known as CTTAG (not to be confused with CTAG). As I have spent a large part of my career arguing, the way to “counter” terrorism is to engage guerrilla war against the groups that practice it, which means armed infiltration and tactical-intel capabilities. That capability exists in NZ but is subsumed under a pile of conventional rubbish–way too many thin-skinned LAVs than required at the expense of tracked vehicles (those M113s could have been reconditioned for half the price of the LAV purchase), plus $1 million a copy anti-tank (I believe they are TOWs) weapons when the NZDF does not confront any major tank threat in any of the medium future conflict scenarios it may engage (for which a CAS capability would be useful).
OK-I was not brief. My bad. But since I am living in economic exile I cannot be there to submit my views so I hope that Stuart, Virtual and some of the more cognizant of you will make your views known.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:29 am
OK let’s get a little realistic here. If New Zealand was to re-build the strike wing it is a minimum of ten years, probably more like fifteen years to get a fully operational force ready. We would have to train fast jet pilots from scratch, mind you that could be done with leased Hawks while something was being built. But in the longer term some trainers would be needed and Hawk Mk.127’s would make sense as the RAAF has just acquired the same airframe for its advanced and weapons training for the F-18 program.
From a cost/benefit/capability point of view my (admittedly amateur) opinion is that the F-16 Block 60 would be a good choice it is a well proven design with very modern avionics and capabilities that would serve the RNZAF for 30+ years. There are large numbers of skilled people world wide who would be available to fill the maintenance and training slots that know the airframe and systems. The F-16 Block 60 is one of the longer ranged single seat multi-role aircraft available (IIRC only the F-15E and maybe the SU-35 have a longer range) and fairly cheap at less than 30M USD a copy flyaway (excluding spares and training)
Others that have been mentioned are:
Saab JAS 39 C/D Gripen – A good fighter by all accounts, but unproven in combat and limited parts availability due to limited sales. 40-61M USD a copy flyaway.
F-18E/F – A compromise design until the F35 is ready that even a significant portion of the US Navy believes is a mistake. 55M USD a copy flyaway.
Eurofighter – Even the UK is having second thoughts about this bird and based on the Tornado I would not buy an English fighter, also a HUGE price tag. 77M Euro a copy flyaway.
SU-34/35 – A nice Russian fighter and attack platform, a good basic design if unproven, limited capability due to very average ergonomics when compared to western aircraft, expensive to maintain and procure. 36-65M USD a copy flyaway
SU-PAK – A good 10 years before this is operational, probably 15-20 before it is exported.
Rafale – French and VERY expensive at 64M Euro a copy flyaway.
Much as I would love to see NZ with a strike wing once more for the price of 20 F-16E/F models and the 12 trainers to make them useful we could get 8-10 C-130J models be probably half way to acquiring some P8’s to replace the Orion’s which are getting very close to airframe life limits.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:53 am
Paul B, I agree entirely with everything you have said. What we have lost over the last decade is the ability to regionally contribute a modern, relevant component at an UNSC Chp VII level of capability for each of our services other than the small 1NZSAS. Everything NZDF wise seems to be a policy package wrapped up in the Peace Support/Low Intensity Conflict worldview of Chp VI type scenario’s. What I find frustrating when I read these sort of threads is that people trundle out all these illogical and uninformed ideas. That there is either peacekeeping or war, invasions of NZ or NZ invading other places sort of diatribes. The unbelievable thing is that pretty much all of our Politicians and so-called experts (hand picked panels) do not get it either. Goff didn’t and nor now does Mapp. The UNSC Chp VI stuff is important and will remain the majority of the NZDF tasking over the next 20 years, but NZ is likely to find itself involved in complex military situations that are not Chp VI nor all out War. It’s the capability in the middle ground that is missing and that will potentially become both tragic and political damaging. What are the chances of an operation just slightly more intensive than INTERFET yet still under the UN Charter happening in the wider region where for political, trade and security ties it is in New Zealand interests to be involved during the next decade? In my view it is possible enough to train and prepare for that eventuality. It is also possible that under current force levels and capability arrangements it could go very badly indeed. Notice to the PM and Cabinet – history and the voters will not treat you kindly when that happens.
Also Paul you might be aware that currently under development at Korean Aerospace for the RoKAF and built with technical assistance of Lockheed is the F/A-50. A platform that will provide Close Air Support, Interdiction and Maritime Strike capability and important second tier support for their F-15/F16 frontline Fighters (A bit like the A4’s role with F111’s in the old ANZAC sense). For those who aren’t aware the F/A-50 airframe is based on the recent T-50 / A-50 and essentially makes for a low cost, single engine, scaled down F/A-18 capability. Unfortunately modern Attack helicopters for close support such as the Tiger and Apache cost in the region of USD60m and they do have a large logistical deployment footprint. Light COIN aircraft can also be used for CAS and are reasonably quite cheap such as the PC-9, but are one dimensional in that they can’t achieve another tasking role and they lack self- deployability due to lack of range. Nor can they do realistic Maritime Attack (like attack helicopters). (Unfortunately the NZDF showboating concept of Maverick firing Orion’s and Seasprites is of tactical irrelevance in the real world only to impress the average One News watcher or Herald reader. Any BVR capable aircraft would kill it before it knew it in a real situation) The problem with the A-10 which I think is a fantastic CAS platform is that it is very expensive to operate per flight hour and all the ones stored in the desert at AMARC are in need of major avionics upgrades. It has also only ever been available to the USAF, which I assume it has been FMS ringfenced as like the F-22, B-2, A-6 since it is so effective that only the US may have it.
I think the F/A-50 has a certain logic to it, in that it is a single platform (for half the price of a modern Attack helicopter or an F-16 or Gripen) where you can achieve very effectively the A/Shp, Interdiction and CAS roles. It does have BVR capability also, and superior radar to F-16’s we were to lease. Retrofited A2A refueling can be done on the two B757’s so are long range deployable. The other thing is that it is set up for the Ch VII type of scenario we are likely to train for in a joint sense and deploy alongside, the sharper FPDA assets but hold our own end up commensurate to our size and not free-load. But let’s be honest. It wont happen until it goes all pear shaped because that is the way we do things down here.
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:51 am
If it’s a given that we can’t afford to maintain as broad a military capability as we have had in the past, we should look to increase the operational involvement we have with Australia, while maintaining the elements of our military that are specific to the tasks that are likely to fall to us independently of Australia.
To be a useful partner with Australia our military has to have respectably modern equipment that complements their own.
I think it would be wise if the military elements we retain are still operationally supportive of each other on a battlefield so in a jam we’re not too reliant on other nations.
I agree with Sonic and others regarding the vulnerability of surface combatants to (comparitively cheap) modern missiles.
So, I’d go for an inshore combat capability for the navy but with a capability to deploy those smaller vessels to other pats of the world, while retaining fishery patrol ships for fishery patrol, keep a good mechanised infantry, with a CAS capable air force, as Paul suggests above. Keep the Orions, upgrade the Hercs.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Yep, the CAS & maritime interdiction roles for a “strike” force are definitely the way to go. Not losing sleep wishing it would happen though. Will say that I am also a fan of the A-10 Paul, an infantryman’s best friend!
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Kingfish: Great (first) post. I much enjoyed the elucidation. I also need to clarify that the anti-tank system I feel is too gold plated for NZ Army requirements and budget is the Javelin system. I am very aware of the Bosnia/Serb tank threat to NZDF peacekeepers, but the Javelin is designed to kill the most advanced US and Russian main battle tanks and presumes no CAS coverage. None of the NZDF future conflict scenarios envision NZ troops confronting modern heavy armour like that. To the contrary, I seem to remember reading somewhere in the last two years a comment by Wayne Mapp saying that they would likely be used against so-called “technical vehicles” (a ute with a 50 cal. bolted to the flatbed manned by an irregular). That would be like using a shotgun to kill a fly!
As for the A-10. although so far not open to foreign sales, I think the time may be opportune for NZ to make a request. The current budget climate and the fact that there are nearly 200 of them mothballed means that, as a reliable security partner that is interested in strengthening bilateral ties, NZ might have such a request given a fresh look by the new US national security team. Again, my bias in favor of that platform (even if it needs the upgrades) shows, as there are plenty of good CAS options out there (as Kingfish has explicated). That includes maritime coverage as well.
The immediate issue for the Review is to forge some informed consensus on what, exactly, medium-term future deployment scenarios and new security threats will be likely (the PRC blue water presence can come under that rubric). The debate between virtualmark and Stuart MacKey (as well as the other informed commentators in this thread) is exactly the sort of debate that needs to be engaged in public forums, parliament, select committees and in submissions to the review panel. To my mind it is the lack of debate and attention put to national security and defence issues that allows unwise procurement decisions to proceed unchecked. Plus, the public needs to understand that national defense and security goes beyond physical defense of the homeland, so a completely pacifist and disarmed approach is both unrealistic and dangerously naive.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
# virtualmark (688) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating2 Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Stuart … actually I have a (well read) copy of Mahan’s book. I agree with his central idea that control of the sea is important militarily and politically (and he was of course an officer in the US Navy). If he were writing now rather than in the 1890’s he’d probably also add that control of the air is pretty important too. And space for that matter. But then, he didn’t have to pay for those toys.
Go back and read my posts at 1:13 and 1:40 this afternoon. My view is any defence review should start with asking (1) what direct military threats will we have to face alone, and (2) what military events will we be expected to contribute towards as part of a coalition, with that same coalition guaranteeing our security against unforeseen threats we can’t face ourselves.
The answer to question (1) is that we don’t face any today, and it’s very very hard to see any that will sensibly arise in the next 30 years. Talk about the Chinese sailing down here to steal fish from our 200-mile zone is fanciful.**
And I reiterate, did you miss out on the rise of the British Empire, and why? what was the mechanism that allowed that to happen. With all due respect, you cannot have read Mahan very well, nor read my comments on how to undermine a nation such as NZ. I would also point out that it is very possible for the world to be a different place in 30 years and to assume that it will be a favourable place for NZ, when a totalitarian power is attaining the capability to project serious power, is the kind of self-delusional folly I ascribe to those who believe in the predictions of circus fortune tellers. As such, one can but say that we should work for peace and prepare for war.
**
The answer to question (2) is a foreign affairs policy question driven by geopolitics. It’s all about choosing who we want to ally with, what level of commitment we need to make as our part of that relationship, and what they’ll do for us if we’re under threat. Historically we’ve allied ourselves with the other English speaking nations. If we’re sensible we’ll reforge those relationships (personally I think this defence review is mainly to do with laying the groundwork for re-allying with the US).
***
And you fail to realise that our force structure historically was always set up with the realisation that allies cannot protect us from absolutely everything, but no one has ever suggested that our forces be able to protect us from everything either. Our naval and air assets , pre 1999, were primarily for those things that can and do get past the forces of our allies, such as the various items of asymmetric warfare, hence the reason for cruisers (once upon a time), frigates and the now defunct airstrike arm.
**
New Zealand’s military history has primarily been as an expeditionary force fighting as a small component in our allies wars. Given our geography & size that’s our place in the world. Our force structure and equipment needs to reflect that.
**
I notice that you fail to mention that the airforce and navy existed, for their wartime functions, to allow that to happen without molestation, but I guess that admitting that would undermine your argument.
**
So the question then becomes what is the best contribution we can make to those allied expeditions. In my post at 1:40 I said my opinion is we should only focus on areas where we can reasonably afford to buy & operate a critical mass of equipment that’s no more than 1 generation behind the worlds best. I’d argue that we can’t afford to play that game with strike aircraft, where critical mass would be about 25 aircraft (so we could sensibly deploy 10-12 at a time), where equipment that’s within 1 generation of the worlds best costs at least $100 million per unit lifetime costs, and where there’s enormous ancillary costs for training & support services.
**
Frankly I think you are ignorant of recent history or being being deliberately dishonest, as evidenced by the fact that the airstrike arm was very affordable by this country and had a specific purpose for decades along side the navy, that of dealing with asymmetric threats in wartime and ensure the safe dispatch of the army overseas..until National slashed the defence budget without reason to the point where nothing much was affordable and choices about capability retention had to be made unless the budget was raised, which it wasn’t, for spurious political reasons.
**
And they’re a pain in the arse to deploy. Let’s say we’d got those Pakistani Block 15 F-16s. They’re a long way behind the current American spec (Block 50/52). I’m pretty sure they don’t support the current datalinks. I suspect they don’t support the latest munitions. Interoperability is bloody hard to maintain.
Likewise it’s hard to keep up with the investment required to have a meaningful naval contribution. The Anzac frigates are well meaning, but we only have 2 (arguably not enough to sustain continuous deployments overseas), and they’re poorly armed. Perhaps if we had several frigates/destroyers with meaningful anti-air and anti-ship capabilities. But realistically we can’t afford 4-5 DDGs.
I’d argue that we’re better focussing our contribution on things like specialist skills in our army. We could (and should IMO) have a 3-battalion army with training & skills as good as, say, the Royal Marines. We could make them highly mobile with good armoured vehicles, transport helicopters and attack helicopters. We could specialise a battalion in jungle warfare. Another in mountain warfare. etc etc. I think that’s the sort of military capability that our allies would value us bringing to the mix.
**
To claim poverty as a justification for such an unbalanced focus, once again, is either ignorant or deliberately dishonest. This nation once was able to spend up to 2% of GDP on defence, not always very efficiently with regards to bang for buck, but up to 2% nevertheless. The choice to reduce that amount was political and keeping it there has been political, although I do accept that increasing that amount is not a viable proposition at the moment. Moreover to have such a narrow focus is not very wise, it guarantees that we can only make one type of commitment, and I do not believe that is viable politically as it removes from us choice about the commitments we can make to incidents that effect our national interest.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
# Paul G. Buchanan (58) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Kingfish: Great (first) post. I much enjoyed the elucidation. I also need to clarify that the anti-tank system I feel is too gold plated for NZ Army requirements and budget is the Javelin system. I am very aware of the Bosnia/Serb tank threat to NZDF peacekeepers, but the Javelin is designed to kill the most advanced US and Russian main battle tanks and presumes no CAS coverage. None of the NZDF future conflict scenarios envision NZ troops confronting modern heavy armour like that. To the contrary, I seem to remember reading somewhere in the last two years a comment by Wayne Mapp saying that they would likely be used against so-called “technical vehicles” (a ute with a 50 cal. bolted to the flatbed manned by an irregular). That would be like using a shotgun to kill a fly!***
I cannot say I agree with that. The Javlin ATGM system allows us to engage armour, and so long as the army is expected to actually fight we should not rule out that our forces not will encounter armoured threats, or other issues that require a range greater than the Carl Gustav 84mm, at some point. Its better to have it and not use it than get our people killed because a bunch of civvies like us lot didn’t think it was a good idea. Indeed one need only look to the fate of the BEF of 1914 to see the necessity of having forces that can engage in unexpected situations even if they haven’t dealt with that sort of thing in a long time.
**
snip A10 stuff
**
The immediate issue for the Review is to forge some informed consensus on what, exactly, medium-term future deployment scenarios and new security threats will be likely (the PRC blue water presence can come under that rubric). The debate between virtualmark and Stuart MacKey (as well as the other informed commentators in this thread) is exactly the sort of debate that needs to be engaged in public forums, parliament, select committees and in submissions to the review panel. To my mind it is the lack of debate and attention put to national security and defence issues that allows unwise procurement decisions to proceed unchecked. Plus, the public needs to understand that national defense and security goes beyond physical defense of the homeland, so a completely pacifist and disarmed approach is both unrealistic and dangerously naive.**
Indeed, I think that one of the great problems we have with respect to anything to do with defence here in NZ, is the fact that the public and media have no real knowledge, or interest, in it, thus our ‘Dear Leaders’ can do as they wish because they are not challenged in a meaningful way on their positions.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Stuart …
“And I reiterate, did you miss out on the rise of the British Empire, and why? what was the mechanism that allowed that to happen. With all due respect, you cannot have read Mahan very well, nor read my comments on how to undermine a nation such as NZ. I would also point out that it is very possible for the world to be a different place in 30 years and to assume that it will be a favourable place for NZ, when a totalitarian power is attaining the capability to project serious power, is the kind of self-delusional folly I ascribe to those who believe in the predictions of circus fortune tellers. As such, one can but say that we should work for peace and prepare for war.”
No, I didn’t miss out on the rise of the British Empire. And yes I know Mahan focuses a lot on the role of the Royal Navy in that rise of empire. But if you think our strategic environment today is similar to that the British & Maori faced in the early 1800’s then you’re deluded.
The Maori faced an enemy who could project overwhelming military technology over global distances. Yes, it is technically possible that we could face a similar situation again. But incredibly unlikely. Where your British Empire fetish falls down though is that what the Maori didn’t have, but which do have, was the option to ally themselves with an equally sophisticated ally who could step in and protect them from the British.
The answer to any fanciful fears you have of a Chinese flotilla sailing over the horizon to steal our fish/water/women is not to build an equally capable flotilla in defence, but to ally ourselves with someone who has that flotilla.
The world’s structures and mores have changed since Mahan wrote about the Royal Navy. I fear you are reading his book too closely.
“I notice that you fail to mention that the airforce and navy existed, for their wartime functions, to allow that to happen without molestation, but I guess that admitting that would undermine your argument.”
Perhaps I failed to mention it because there hasn’t been an instance yet of when our military deployed and operated as an expeditionary force with army, navy and strike aircraft operating in close coordination. (maybe a little in Malaya? But I think not). We have sent separate army expeditions, naval forces and strike aircraft, but they have often fought in quite separate theatres let alone in the same battles.
When our army has gone to foreign battles it has gone as a component of a bigger army force drawn from several countries, and been protected by air support provided by several countries. I do not see any need for us to have to have strike aircraft so that they can (theoretically) be deployed to support our troops and only our troops. Hasn’t happened before. Unlikely to happen in the future. Too tenuous a link to justify investing billions in strike aircraft.
I do whole-heartedly agree with Paul Buchanan though on the need for CAS that is tightly integrated with our army. But my personal opinion is that should come from helicopters that are part of an Army Air Force.
“Frankly I think you are ignorant of recent history or being being deliberately dishonest, as evidenced by the fact that the airstrike arm was very affordable by this country and had a specific purpose for decades along side the navy, that of dealing with asymmetric threats in wartime and ensure the safe dispatch of the army overseas..until National slashed the defence budget without reason to the point where nothing much was affordable and choices about capability retention had to be made unless the budget was raised, which it wasn’t, for spurious political reasons.”
Well if you think that was the role of the Skyhawks then you must be disappointed that they failed whole-heartedly at it.
I struggle to see how our Skyhawks could have supported the navy when their combat radius was about 400nm. We obviously weren’t planning on our navy going very far. Likewise I can’t see strike aircraft’s ability to protect a navy against asymmetric threats. The classical asymmetric threat to a Navy right now is a small zodiac loaded with explosives pulling alongside on a suicide mission. You planning on having strike aircraft loitering over our Navy 24/7 to avert that? And just how could they avert it? Likewise, how could strike aircraft protect the fleet against anti-ship missiles launched from air/land/sea at long distances? Or ballistic anti-ship missiles?
“To claim poverty as a justification for such an unbalanced focus, once again, is either ignorant or deliberately dishonest. This nation once was able to spend up to 2% of GDP on defence, not always very efficiently with regards to bang for buck, but up to 2% nevertheless. The choice to reduce that amount was political and keeping it there has been political, although I do accept that increasing that amount is not a viable proposition at the moment. Moreover to have such a narrow focus is not very wise, it guarantees that we can only make one type of commitment, and I do not believe that is viable politically as it removes from us choice about the commitments we can make to incidents that effect our national interest.”
Stuart, my view is that we should be spending 1.8%-2% of GDP on defence, although I doubt this review will ask for that.
My view on focussing on a fewer capabilities is just purely to try to be experts at a few things rather than journeymen at most. All militaries are struggling with the cost of maintaining a jet force – just look at Gates’ decisions last week to pull right back on the USAF’s manned programmes (and to re-prioritise that spend to armoured vehicles etc).
My view is that the last time our air force deployed strike aircraft in anger was 50 years ago. Our last fleet of strike aircraft never deployed in anger, but spent its life doing circuits over the Manawatu and acting as glorified targets for the RAN. If they had deployed in anger it would have to have been alongside someone else who’d have provided air superiority, and then our Skyhawks wouldn’t have been able to readily interoperate with them.
We cannot afford to keep up on the jet fighter treadmill. I’d much rather give our NZDF staff a 20% pay-rise and world-class equipment they’ll use than indulge some Biggles wannabees with shiny toys that’ll never get used.
Although, if I was king for a day, I could also be talked in to buying some air defence ships like the RAN’s new Hobart class.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Stuart, Paul Buchanan … qu for you both …
I think one thing this Defence Review should have a good hard look at is New Zealand’s vulnerability to cyberwarfare attack, and should investigate establishing a unit akin to the USAF’s Cyber Command. What’s your thoughts?
My take is that this is one area where New Zealand could come under direct “physical” attack.
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Virtual:
Although they will obviously not provide details, the GCSB and NZSIS have hinted that Chinese cyber espionage is a major concern–and well it should be. If we take the Chinese and Russian cyber attacks of recent times as an example, even a low level mischief attack (say, disruption of ISP services) can do much damage. However, I do not think that NZ necessarily needs a dedicated command since the the GCSB could well assume (and most likely now handles) such responsibilities. The point is to be aware, alert and prepared against such attacks.
Stuart: I grasp your point but believe there is better value for the NZ dollar when it comes to ATGM.
Lastly, I think that the % GDP spent on defence needs to be raised to at least 1.5% to keep pace with inflation and to conform to overall NATO/OECD standards. On the ther hand, I think that the NZ aid budget should be raised to one percent (from its current 0.7%). I think that would be a politically palatable thing to offer the public. However, that aggregate 0.8 percent diversion of GDP to aid and defence means something has to give on the domestic policy front because both are public goods and hence tax funded., Given the tax cutting versus entitlement mentalities across the NZ political divide, defence and foreign aid are the areas most easily kept under-funded. Which is why we need the public debate on the issue!
I would love to comment on Singapore (which has been mentioned herein by way of comparison), a place I am familiar with and which spends 6 percent of its GDP on national defence (that excludes civil defence, police, immigration etc.–i.e. the 6 percent goes to the military alone) But I shall defer for the moment other than to note that the lack of strategic depth of the island state (in a contiguously dense threat environment), coupled with past history, makes for almost the exact reverse of the NZ mentality when it comes to the subject.
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Slight correction, the NZ Aid budget isn’t 0.7%, that is a target which is meant to be met by 2015. At the moment it’s 0.3% and isn’t on track to getting to 0.7. Good point otherwise though.
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Thanks Piggy. You are absolutely right–I remember that Bob Geldoff recently rebuked NZ for not meeting the 0.7% OECD threshold!
April 24th, 2009 at 1:48 am
Yeah let us go back 30 years.
The Maoris want to build a stronger unified New Zealand, forget the past, forgive and forget!
Man, all those Billions of dollars going into out air force, navy and infantry.
The reality (2009);
The Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal hearings ensured that billions, yes billions of dollars went to:
Buiding up an anti-NZ racist group (called these days the local Iwi):
Spending heaps on marijuana and booze.
Spending heaps on unemploment and DPB benefits for Maoris.
Um, so when Indonesia comes down, you fucking Maori cunts better throw those stones hard!!
What a joke the Maori have made of a pretty decent country, once affectionately known as New Zealand, made up of three islands, North Island, South Island and Stewart island.
Goodbye New Zealand.
April 24th, 2009 at 1:55 am
Oh yeah, we can’t forget that racist Maori fuck, One Nation wasn’t it?
The one that inspired Dave Dobbyn’s song Welcome Home.
One Nation, ya that really really defines what the Maori want!!
Don’t you mean one race!!!?
Come on have the balls to say it!!
April 24th, 2009 at 2:02 am
The ugliness and hate and violence inherent in the Maori minority of the country formerly known as New Zealand and the PC left wing nature of the Kiwis has led to the destruction of NZ.
Only 16%.
So who should be more ashamed?
April 24th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Robert Black, who’s <0.000025%, should be more ashamed.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
# virtualmark (691) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Stuart …
**No, I didn’t miss out on the rise of the British Empire. And yes I know Mahan focuses a lot on the role of the Royal Navy in that rise of empire. But if you think our strategic environment today is similar to that the British & Maori faced in the early 1800’s then you’re deluded.**
I never said that the world was remotely similar to the 19th century, but you havent been honest to date so I guess I shouldn’t expect to to be so now.
**The Maori faced an enemy who could project overwhelming military technology over global distances. Yes, it is technically possible that we could face a similar situation again. But incredibly unlikely. Where your British Empire fetish falls down though is that what the Maori didn’t have, but which do have, was the option to ally themselves with an equally sophisticated ally who could step in and protect them from the British.**
No, where they fell down was not having a Navy.
**
The answer to any fanciful fears you have of a Chinese flotilla sailing over the horizon to steal our fish/water/women is not to build an equally capable flotilla in defence, but to ally ourselves with someone who has that flotilla.
**
What is it with you and your constant lies and logical fallacies? I am rapidly getting sick if it. I have never said that NZ should have a massive navy to get involved in latter-day battles of Jutland. What I have said is that our forces need to be able to deal with those ‘leakers’ that get past the forces of our allies, nothing more.
**
The world’s structures and mores have changed since Mahan wrote about the Royal Navy. I fear you are reading his book too closely.
**
And you have not read it enough.
**
Perhaps I failed to mention it because there hasn’t been an instance yet of when our military deployed and operated as an expeditionary force with army, navy and strike aircraft operating in close coordination. (maybe a little in Malaya? But I think not). We have sent separate army expeditions, naval forces and strike aircraft, but they have often fought in quite separate theatres let alone in the same battles.**
You would have to be the most dishonest individual I have ever met online. I never said that our Airforce and Navy should act in such a manner but they existed, as can be seen in government policy, which can be found online, from pre 1914 right through to 1939, to ensure that the army could act as an *expeditionary* force without molestation, I have also said that this happens by air and navy keeping the ports etc safe from asymmetric warfare, the classic case being mine sweeping and the destruction of raiders such as Graf Spee.
Moreover this was Britain’s requirement of us and a practical necessity for them in wartime because they knew that the RN could not guarantee to protect us from such enemy action.
**When our army has gone to foreign battles it has gone as a component of a bigger army force drawn from several countries, and been protected by air support provided by several countries. I do not see any need for us to have to have strike aircraft so that they can (theoretically) be deployed to support our troops and only our troops. Hasn’t happened before. Unlikely to happen in the future. Too tenuous a link to justify investing billions in strike aircraft.**
Another strawman argument, I have never said that the air force should be used for such a purpose, I have said it was and should be used for something else entirely! But Honesty never was part of the left wing defence credo.
**I do whole-heartedly agree with Paul Buchanan though on the need for CAS that is tightly integrated with our army. But my personal opinion is that should come from helicopters that are part of an Army Air Force.
**
Hypocrite, you advocate against that very thing above.
**Well if you think that was the role of the Skyhawks then you must be disappointed that they failed whole-heartedly at it.**
So why were they assigned that role on HMAS Melbourne and US aircraft carriers? and the A4 managed to sink a number of British ships in the Falklands war operating from land bases, seriously, could you possibly be more ignorant? .
**I struggle to see how our Skyhawks could have supported the navy when their combat radius was about 400nm. We obviously weren’t planning on our navy going very far.**
A4 Skyhawk, Falklands war, 1982, sinking British ships, in excess of 400 nm from base return flights.
**
Likewise I can’t see strike aircraft’s ability to protect a navy against asymmetric threats. The classical asymmetric threat to a Navy right now is a small zodiac loaded with explosives pulling alongside on a suicide mission. You planning on having strike aircraft loitering over our Navy 24/7 to avert that? And just how could they avert it?**
I have never claimed that the Airforce should be doing any of those things and as for zodiacs, the navy handles that themselves. Your dishonesty knows no bounds as usual
** Likewise, how could strike aircraft protect the fleet against anti-ship missiles launched from air/land/sea at long distances?**
Traditionally they do that by destroying the launching platform, in case you hadn’t heard, or the navy does it, which is one of their traditional roles. There, you have learnt something today.
** Or ballistic anti-ship missiles?**
Ah yes, the great never-been-produced-or-tested- claimed to destroy-all-shipping-wonder weapon. I shall stick to facts, you should to.
**Stuart, my view is that we should be spending 1.8%-2% of GDP on defence, although I doubt this review will ask for that.**
Fair enough, I am of the same opinion.
**
My view on focussing on a fewer capabilities is just purely to try to be experts at a few things rather than journeymen at most. All militaries are struggling with the cost of maintaining a jet force – just look at Gates’ decisions last week to pull right back on the USAF’s manned programmes (and to re-prioritise that spend to armoured vehicles etc).
**
Your are ignoring history. We find oursleves in our current position by virtue of intellectually dishonest government policy and penny pinching that has forced this current situation. We can have a reasonably balanced forces if we restore spending to where it has been historically, we know this because we have done it before.
**My view is that the last time our air force deployed strike aircraft in anger was 50 years ago. Our last fleet of strike aircraft never deployed in anger, but spent its life doing circuits over the Manawatu and acting as glorified targets for the RAN. If they had deployed in anger it would have to have been alongside someone else who’d have provided air superiority, and then our Skyhawks wouldn’t have been able to readily interoperate with them.**
It was never policy *to* deploy them beyond our local area, except as a secondary function because their primary function was in the South pacific, something you ‘conveniently’ ignore, we had this policy because of demonstrated experience in two world wars and demonstrated inability to predict the future.
**We cannot afford to keep up on the jet fighter treadmill. I’d much rather give our NZDF staff a 20% pay-rise and world-class equipment they’ll use than indulge some Biggles wannabees with shiny toys that’ll never get used.**
And yet more left wing dishonesty. We had them precisely because it was *not known* if they would have to be used. Of course if you can say with absolute certainty that an airstrike arm would never be used, then I want you to supply the wining numbers to lotto and photocopies of the contingency warplans for all pacific rim nations as evidence of your assertion that such aircraft will never be used.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:11 am
After reading 90% of the stuff here there are a few urban myths, misunderstandings, or in a few cases complete BS. First a bit of history. The 75th Sqd were in the region during the initial deployment tempo of INTERFET in late 1999. They had been in Malaysia conducting a FPDA exercise and were transiting back through Australia. General Cosgrove was well aware of their presence as Taskforce Commander and the TNI no doubt was aware of their capabilities and deterrence factor. If the TNI or splinter group had tried it on Cosgrove would have made a request to the NZ Govt for the A4’s to be placed under the Taskforce. If a request from Cosgrove came through to our Government the Skyhawks would have joined INTERFET. They were regarded as ORBAT standby in any case. The old adage that because they were not used in combat let’s get rid of them is far too superficial. I hope Mapp gets sat down and given a good talking to because his use them or lose them comments were bogus. Realign a capability fine, but to wipe it out on short term thinking is nonsense. In fact the last time NZ used a Battalion in anger prior to Timor was during the Konfrantasi in Borneo in 1965-1965 where six 14Sqd Canberra’s and three RNZN ships Santon, Hickleton and Taranaki were also deployed. That is why politicians and people who believe everything that comes out of their mouths are likely to be misled.
There is also on this discussion thread and amongst the public, a notion that an armed attack helicopter is somehow less evil or more PC than a fixed winged aircraft. They are not. There is a not clear choice between Close Air Support of ground troops being undertaken by what some people mistakenly here call “fighters” versus rotary. Both are capable of doing the job. The Skyhawk was a ground and maritime attack aircraft. It wasn’t really a fighter though it could actually dog fight quite well. Today a fighter means air superiority role or combat air patrol role. Fighters in this era of BVR (Beyond Visual Range) capable missiles don’t really do the ‘Top Gun’ stuff like the movies. A ‘fighter’ might look similar to a fixed wing ‘attack’ aircraft used to support ground troops to the uninitiated but under the skin there roles are different.
If for instance NZ went down attack helicopter route the choices would be either, the Eurocopter Tiger or the Apache. Essentially because when we would have reason to deploy them, it would be part of a coalition carrying out at least a Chp VII level operation. It comes down to an issue of inter-operability and sustainability of support. Our allies use them and they can easily slot into the tactical matrix. Both around the USD$50-60m price range. The cheaper Kamov Ka-50 cannot do this and there has been a long history of unsustainability in terms of parts and serviceability with Russian aircraft.
Attack helicopter can do a lot of excellent battle field support roles. That is why medium and large Defence Forces have them. However in terms of Interdiction and maritime strike they are not that flexible a platform. They don’t have to be because they are usually part of a defined and layered mission package. It was that multi-role flexibility that the A-4 Skyhawk had which made it an ideal aircraft for New Zealand. The other deployment issue with Attack helicopters is that they have a long and complex logistical supply line as they are deployed close to the line at a forward base. Therefore not just supplying them with parts, ordinance and fuel is an issue, but also defending them in-situ which involves further ground troops and VLADM like the Mistral. That is fine for a medium sized defence force such as Australia or Singapore but in New Zealand it is not the case where every serviceman and dollar counts. A fixed wing aircraft on the other hand within the context of a NZDF type of force with the dollar-manpower restriction that presents itself, is the more appropriate option. There is the multi-role cost benefit as the platform can do a number of tasks both operationally and in training.
As for the F-16’s. The ones we were getting (Block 15 MLU) were very good aircraft in some ways. They could have served in Afghanistan without any drama’s alongside NATO F-16A/B’s once ECM pods were fitted, or UN no-fly zone missions due to their CAP ability, but dispassionately they were probably not the most appropriate option. They aren’t as good in the maritime environment as other aircraft such as the F/A-18 which as an aircraft offers greater flexibility. It is the flexibility of platform that is a vital consideration for a country like New Zealand. Nevertheless, workable compromises needed to be made and are always made concerning the RNZAF on price. However we did not get them, nor did we take up the favourable opportunity to buy the C-130J alongside the RAAF in 2002 which would have given service to 2045 and decided to over purchase on LAV’s and upgrade again the elderly C-130H’s which will be unsupportable by 2020.
Finally, Mr Farrah’s notion of merging the RNZAF into Army and Navy. Canada sort of toyed with this concept in the 70’s. Was a dog’s breakfast. You can take the three services – one force thing too far.
April 25th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Stuart … back up a bit.
I advocate that we should increase our defence spend to near 2% of GDP pa.
I also advocate that we should found our defence posture on (re-)forging tight alliances with our traditional English-speaking allies.
I also advocate that we should focus our defence spend on areas where we can be world-class, with kit that’s no more than one generation behind the world’s best (so our servicepeople aren’t sent into battle with dud equipment that makes them sitting ducks), and where we can afford to have enough critical mass of that kit that we can genuinely deploy a meaningful force (rather than a show-the-flag force).
And I also advocate that a good portion of the additional defence spend has to go into salaries, so that we can attract high quality recruits and retain them.
Do you agree with those?
April 25th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Stuart … just to clarify my own personal views on what we should focus our spend on.
1. Boosting NZDF salaries & allowances, to stem the loss of skilled staff & attract good quality recruits.
2. Fully staff up the Army’s 2 land force groups, raise their training standards.
3. Boost the size of the SAS Group, and spend more on their kit … given they are regularly deployed in action (perhaps we could even look at direct recruitment into the SAS, as they now do with the US Navy SEALS)
4. Add more helicopters (I don’t think 8 NH90’s and 10 A109’s is enough)
5. Replace the C130 fleet (I can’t understand why we didn’t buy C130J’s, and I think we need more than 5)
6. Up-arm the Anzac frigates. AFAIK we’re not following the Aussies fitting a Harpoon & VLS system to the Anzacs, we should be.
7. Replace the P-3 fleet (perhaps with a mix of P-8’s and a long-range UAV)
So priorities 1-7 are all focused on retaining & improving our current capabilities.
**If** there’s any money left in a budget after that then if it was up to me I’d:
8. Raise a third Army land force group, preferably with specialist focus (maybe heavier armoured? Or mountain? Or highly-mobile?). The Army is our most frequently deployed part of the NZDF, and it’s numbers are really stretched.
9. Build up a CAS capability that’s very tightly integrated with the Army. Personally I lean towards attack helicopters, rather than fixed wing. All are expensive, all are difficult to deploy, all rely on others to provide air superiority in a hostile environment. But I think helicopters are better suited to the low intensity conflicts we’re more likely to be involved in. And fixed wing aircraft require a lot of further ancillary stuff like training squadrons, in-flight refuelling, AWACs etc that blows their true costs out.
10. Get some more capable frigates/destroyers … particularly with real anti-air and anti-ship capability. But that sort of capability is very very expensive – look at Australia’s experience with the Hobart class.
I suspect that a defence budget of 2% of GDP pa would stretch to cover items 1 through 8, but might not even be enough to do items 9 and 10 in a serious way.
It’d be good to replace the Canterbury with something like the HMS Ocean or the Canberra class LHD (call that item 11). But I just don’t think we will be able to afford that, even with a 2% of GDP spend.
So I’m not looking to wimp out on our defence commitments. But I am trying to be pragmatic about what we can reasonably afford at a high quality.