Labour/Greens will decimate the Defence Force

[Dave Homewood]

Labour/Greens will decimate the Defence Force

20/03/2017
By Lloyd Burr

OPINION: Labour and the Greens are in la-la land if they think they can use $20 billion earmarked for a long-needed Defence Force upgrade as a slush fund for their election policies.

The Defence Force has been on the bones of its backside for long enough, and another round of austerity would see it lose many of its key capabilities.

The 15-year $20b plan will see a whole range of old and expired ships and planes and other gear replaced with new ones that are fit-for-purpose, reliable, and more efficient.

Labour leader Andrew Little says there's no point in having state-of-the-art defence equipment if there are people living on the streets, or if there's underfunding in schools.

Well Mr Little, there's no point having an Air Force if it doesn't have planes to fly, or a Navy that doesn't have the right ships, or an Army that doesn't have the latest digital battlefield equipment.

Greens co-leader James Shaw is also sceptical about the planned spend, and would like to see it re-prioritised.

Well, Mr Shaw, here's the reality: The C-130 Hercules fleet is 52 years old. The P-3 Orion fleet is 51 years old. The Boeing 757 fleet is 35 years old. The HMNZS Endeavour is 29 years old. The HMNZS Manawanui is 37 years old.

There's not much life left in them.

Labour and the Greens want to make this antique kit last another 15 years. They're dreaming.

Labour would never have made this move if Phil Goff was still an MP. He's been calling for more defence spending since 2009.
The Defence Force has spent far too long struggling to make ends meet with shrinking budgets and ageing infrastructure.

The last headache it needs is the thought of spending the next 15 years trying to protect New Zealand with the gear it has.

Lloyd Burr is a political reporter for Newshub.

www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/lloyd-burr-labour-greens-will-decimate-the-defence-force.html

[Mustang51]

And just think it is not just the defence capabilities, it is the ability to react quickly and efficiently to humanitarian disasters through disaster relief that is also a vital part of the defence forces mandate in this modern age. Just have a look at what has happened around the world in the last ten years and closer to home, what has happened in NZ with Christchurch and Kaikoura.

[Dave Homewood]

Exactly. Without the NZDF's transport fleet, helicopters, ships, survey aircraft, etc, the response in Kaikoura, Christchurch and many of the Pacific disasters would have been adversely effected and more lives would probably have been lost.

[ZacYates]

A school friend of mine is running as Labour's candidate for the local electorate. As we're close to Ohakea (although it's beyond her borders) I'll point her to this thread and remind her about just what the NZDF does for us at home and abroad.

[flyinkiwi]

What I find funny about Green politics (in this country in particular) is that they want to protect the environment without defending the environment.

[rayo]

Looking more strategically albeit on a small and local scale we have certain obligations to our near neighbours in the Pacific for not only aid but a level of support against rogue fishing. As well as that one of their neighbours (with a significant Defence Force and murky International ties) has been known to Sabre Rattle against them from time to time. Is it the Labour and Greens Policy to abandon them - it's time to be upfront about this??

BTW what happened to the no Politics Rule Dave??

[skyhawkdon]

Good article. Not so sure about Phil Goff being the Labour saviour of the NZDF though. He was a big part of the 2000/2001 Labour Defence slash and burn.

[Dave Homewood]

Mar 23, 2017 15:36:01 GMT 12 rayo said:

BTW what happened to the no Politics Rule Dave??

You might want to read the rules again. Political discussion that pertains directly to either aviation or defence matters is and always has been allowed on the forum.

[obiwan27]

Mar 23, 2017 14:22:26 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Exactly. Without the NZDF's transport fleet, helicopters, ships, survey aircraft, etc, the response in Kaikoura, Christchurch and many of the Pacific disasters would have been adversely effected and more lives would probably have been lost.

Agreed Dave.

One of the most reassuring sounds on the day after the big 28 September 2010 quake was the sounds of an Iroquois overhead the city. Plus other aircraft as things undfolded, along with the response to the February quake.

[flyinkiwi]

I re-read the article again and thought I'd put some context around it. Imagine if our Police were driving 52 year old cars...



Yes I admit I am not comparing apples with apples but the authors point is pretty plain to see.

[TS]

We all better start praying that National gets in for another term in six months time then ...

Or the Army will be running around with wooden rifles saying BANG BANG.
Airforce making paper planes, voicing aircraft sounds.
Navy playing with plastic boats, voicing splashing of water.

Also has anyone noticed how the .....%$#! Media have started their usual bias for Labour lately? They do it every time in election year.

[madmac]

So What, Nationals defense plan is a white wash, based on a white paper that can't even mention the treats posed by the biggest nutter in the Pacific let alone comprehended the strategic effects of that nutter being everyones biggest trade partner. 20 billion is great but poorly spent is worse than not being spent at all.

Humanitarian disasters is not something that requires a military, much better bang for buck can be obtained from an organization that doesn't spend money on lots of things that go bang!

There is also little pointing a military if when it comes to the crunch, that the politicians won't use. In light of what looks like millions being given to the political parties by PRC aligned individuals this last point is probably the most important.

[Dave Homewood]

Mar 24, 2017 8:57:03 GMT 12 madmac said:

So What, Nationals defense plan is a white wash, based on a white paper that can't even mention the treats posed by the biggest nutter in the Pacific let alone comprehended the strategic effects of that nutter being everyones biggest trade partner.

Malcolm Turnbull???

Humanitarian disasters is not something that requires a military

Yeah right. How do you think the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, and all the other relief agencies and emergency services actually get into disaster zones? No civilian organisation operates large capacity transports with the ability to get into rough, short strips in this country, for a start. Not one civilian outfit could have performed the vital aerial surveys as carried out by the RNZAF and our sister-Air Forces after Kaikoura. No-one other than the RNZAF have a 757-sized flying hospital. So if all the money that supports the RNZAF's capabilities was taken from them, it would have to be funneled to a civil organisation to do all the work to fill the shortfall left, but any civil organisation would need a shitload MORE money to do the same thing. And they'd be sitting round doing nothing with all their equipment for years waiting for a decent disaster, whereas the military have multi-use aircraft for all sorts of things that benefit New Zealand.

, much better bang for buck can be obtained from an organization that doesn't spend money on lots of things that go bang!

In case you haven't noticed the NZDF does not have much that goes bang, and you'd get much LESS bang for buck if you took the defence budget away and gave it to humanitarian agencies. A LOT less. For one thing the military does not need to make a profit like the agencies.

There is also little pointing a military if when it comes to the crunch, that the politicians won't use.

Our military is used every day, for goodness sake. EVERY DAY they are out there working hard for New Zealanders in so, so many ways it's not funny. It's an absolute insult to say they're 'not used'. Wake up!!!!

In light of what looks like millions being given to the political parties by PRC aligned individuals this last point is probably the most important.

Not even sure what you'r insinuating here, so point lost.

[Mustang51]

I am not all that up with the nuances of NZ politics but , as a general rule, they are the same world over. I believe that with the changes in the geopolitical structures in this part of the world over the last 15 years in particular, I believe that sooner rather than later or not at all, there will be a military engagement which shall require a response.

 That response shall require equipment and that equipment cannot be last century. You don't take a knife to a gunfight.

I believe that flashpoint will not be big and will not escalate but I believe it shall happen. With the Chinese influence spreading and spreading a lot more than you know already, there shall come a point where someone will do something dumb.

I think it to be more a "reaction to a stimulus" rather than a strategically planned conflict. Bit like the Russians low level overflights of the US naval vessel where it happens once too often or the boundaries are crossed and someone has the red mist drop down.

After that there shall be a lot more 'push-back" by the nations that have hitherto just sent a stern letter or waved their arms around in the impotent UN. That is the side of the military that will be needed and it has to be a credible "push-back".

If you do not think that China has spread throughout the Pacific just look at all the fishing rights that they now have to the detriment of the Pacific Island nations. They go in, promise a tractor or two, get the fishing rights then suck the life out of the ocean that has traditionally been the province of the island nation and because of "agreements" that nation is basically unable to do anything. It is insidious and has been escalating for years.

Now things are becoming more overt with the construction of those "islands" in the South China Sea and them now claiming 'traditional' fishing rights further south to Indonesia and also Philippines.

I am not a Hawk but I believe that there is a twofold mission for the military, defence and assistance. Its major role now is assistance when you boil it all down.

Presently our military is supporting a number of operations but they are not what is a traditional full-scale war. The misery and the death brought down is the same but it is not large scale. Australia and New Zealand both have obligations to their neighbours through various treaties and agreements.

There will come a time when those neighbours shall call for assistance and it is of no use to go in with outdated equipment. The deterrence value rather than an active role is what I think shall occur. Sending your own feet on the ground with outdated gear is an act of treachery against your own personnel.

Australia has in the past been called upon to militarily support one of its allies in the SEATO group by supplying Sabres to patrol Thailand's borders against possible incursions from Cambodia. It may have been a while ago now but with the changes in the atmosphere in the Pacific, God forbid but, I don't think it will be too long before it happens again to either Oz, NZ or perhaps both.

A modern military is a bulwark against active or passive aggression and also in the support of our allies and ourselves in times of disaster and humanitarian relief. You cannot do either mission with outdated gear.

I am not advocating that NZ goes out and buys F.35s or anything else. That is a decision to be made by those with a long term view of the NZ role but I am pushing for allied nations to ensure that they are capable of deterring the sort of thing that happened before WW.II - unchecked expansion.

OK, I'll get off that horse now.

[30sqnatc]

Mar 24, 2017 8:19:48 GMT 12 flyinkiwi said:

I re-read the article again and thought I'd put some context around it. Imagine if our Police were driving 52 year old cars...



Yes I admit I am not comparing apples with apples but the authors point is pretty plain to see.

I like your apples. The Crown BMWs will be replaced with these Holdens when the next rolling purchase is made ... yeah right.

[frankly]

Dave, I'm being provocative here for the sake of illustrating a point. Not trying to be a W***ker!



No civilian organisation operates large capacity transports with the ability to get into rough, short strips in this country, for a start.


With an Amex card with enough credit, anyone can charter a C-130, IL-76, AN-124 or any number of other cargo aircraft capable of operating from short/rough strips. 

Not one civilian outfit could have performed the vital aerial surveys as carried out by the RNZAF and our sister-Air Forces after Kaikoura.

Several companies in New Zealand have standing contracts for LIDAR and vertical photography with several different companies in New Zealand and offshore. NZDF doesn't do LIDAR.


No-one other than the RNZAF have a 757-sized flying hospital.


Companies like International SOS can do the AME role for a similar number of casualties. For Pacific Ops, the likes of Life Flight can perform a MEDEVAC using a fixed wing faster than RNZAF can - they're at shorter NTM.


Most of these civil-assisantance and HADAR ops are ultimately B*S - the ability to do the tasks is a residual capability because of a core military output. At the end of the day, the purpose of the military is to apply force on behalf of the state. Warfighting and enabling capabilities should be front and centre, not the politically correct crap that seems to be the main focus of attention.SaveSave

[TS]

OOOHHHH!!! can of worms here.... may be time to stop!!! just sayin............................

[madmac]

RNZAF have a 757-sized flying hospital

The last time I saw that bit of kit, I think it was 2 pallets (one bed each) with ICU level kit, which is not quite a hospital, the most unique capability was being rated for 400 lb patients.

I do admit that I think a powerful long term security contribution to NZ would be 6 US-2 fitted as flying clinics / bus service, based in & supporting the islands using a locally drawn multi national sqn structure but that is different again to the standard humanitarian aid.

No civilian organisation operates large capacity transports with the ability to get into rough, short strips in this country, for a start.

Actually it is probably cheaper to have an airport building program, as many of the big civil emergencies are quite predicable. So with a bit of forward planning, we don't need lots of lift in to rough, short strips. There are also a lot of FIFO operaters in OZ that use rough strips.

Part of the problem is the military doesn't do a lot of its core activities full scale i.e. everyone breaking people or things, so there is a lot of scope for standing around doing not much at all, which means its easy to drift away from core activities doing interesting things like fighting for politicians brain farts typically somewhere in the middle east which leads to force structures that one could call Auntie Helen's Busy Body Force or Johnies Ass Kissing Service.

There is a well know tendency for humans to under estimate the impact of low probability events (which is why NASA has only just recently started looking for & tracking planet killing asteroids yet warrants a modest percentage of everyone defense budget), so yes we are mostly likely underestimate the chance of the major military conflict in the pacific.

reaction to a stimulus" rather than a strategically planned conflict

It doesn't always have to be unpredictable, the PRC leaders will seek outside conflict to prevent civil unrest that could unseat them, i.e. the XXXX are creating economic stagnation, so we will punish them by invading type crap.
A couple of unpredictable stimulus that scare me
we wake up one day and find the USA has ran out of suckers to borrow money from first (they only owe 4 x's as much as in 2009).
we find a GE organism on the lose that threatens a large percent of the global food crop.
Solor fare wipes out western technical advantage.



If one does get a chance to ask a polly about defense, the first question to ask them is what is the worse that they think could happen if the funding or force structure is wrong. Much harder to say that we don't need them then.

[flyinkiwi]

Mar 24, 2017 17:37:06 GMT 12 30sqnatc said:

Mar 24, 2017 8:19:48 GMT 12 flyinkiwi said:

I re-read the article again and thought I'd put some context around it. Imagine if our Police were driving 52 year old cars...



Yes I admit I am not comparing apples with apples but the authors point is pretty plain to see.

I like your apples. The Crown BMWs will be replaced with these Holdens when the next rolling purchase is made ... yeah right.

***SARCASM WARNING***

Press release from NZ Police: A major life extension programme has been announced for the fleet of EH Holdens. All new replacement tyres, brakes, suspension, steering rack, rear differential, carburetor jets, window winders and distributor cap along with the latest in radio communication technology will extend the service of the cars out to 2025. The budget for the upgrade was set at NZ$1.2 million and NZ Police are working very hard with the contractor Super Cheap Auto to bring the project to completion by the deadline of December 2018.

[thelensofhistory]

Mar 23, 2017 16:36:21 GMT 12 skyhawkdon said:

Good article. Not so sure about Phil Goff being the Labour saviour of the NZDF though. He was a big part of the 2000/2001 Labour Defence slash and burn.

Agreed,  reading the article gave me the same impression.  IMO, NZ having no military capabilities beyond a small coast guard  may occur by the year 2030. Eventually a future government will no longer be able to delay purchasing new frigates and aircraft. I suspect the RNZN faces the greatest risk due to scale of economy. Ordering only 2 hulls (the Anzac frigate replacement) is a sure way of increasing the final bill. The RNZN combat arm may be scraped all together.