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.

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?

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.

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.

Only 16%.

So who should be more ashamed?

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!!

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.