|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 8, 2009 15:31:31 GMT 12
Whilst we are all giving this some deep thought, I thought I may weigh in with these general comments.
When ministerial officials from the ASEAN region visit either, New Zealand and Australia one of the key discussions they want to have is on Collective Defence first then trade. It is one of the primary reasons they come to Wellington for. Australia gets it – we don’t. We New Zealanders always think trade deals first and then eventually defence second in which we then get all white liberal middle class about it if at all. This is pretty much what, the disconnect between New Zealanders and the broader context and implementations of Defence boil down to. Once we only ever really had to deal with the UK and Australia, and occasionally the Yanks, we only really started to go global by ourselves around 25 years ago – a late starter. I hear people say New Zealanders are well travelled, but as a Canadian mate once said to me that does not mean you Kiwi’s understand the world, it means you can find a hotel in Tangiers.
We New Zealanders tend to have this incapacity to understand that other nations when conducting international dialogue actually have different needs and motivations. For New Zealanders geo strategic stability is a given, so stable in fact that we are not conscious of any threat. However, in a the wider Asian region which plays a ever growing and significant part of this nations future economically and strategically, it is stability in the security sense which is the fundamental default position. It is this core issue of stability where the relationship is built upon because in their worldview you cannot have economic growth, positive trade relationship beyond goods of necessity, without it. They have learnt these things from thousands of years of conflict and we are not listening. And we wonder why we really struggle to get products on overseas shelves, get on larger countries diplomatic radar, negotiate tariff reductions, FTA’s, and achieve influence. As I said we are not conscious of instability and we make up for it in being over self-conscious in how well think we are doing in Defence all judged by our own yardstick.
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 8, 2009 18:30:01 GMT 12
corokid66, so what you are saying is that the domino's believed the domino theory. How could they? it not like they had a major war with infiltration, lack of international border respect, with major human rights violations, backed by foreign powers and real politik in their back yard. I'm sure a farm girl from the waikato , a card carrying member of the communist party who had a stable childhood free from oppression hunger disease and violence knew far better. After all she showed us the correct tree hugging wipe my boyfriends bottom way of life protesting white hienemann's hotrods when they drove up the western motorway in their delivery pajamas. (incidentally when she was first elected she was hopping onto a herc, - so this is a P-3 Orion? - no ma'am that's one of those over there, this is a C-130 Hercules for transport). Winston Churchill had it right, flawed as he was in many ways -(aren't we all) - nations are like human beings - in slow motion.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Nov 8, 2009 20:21:09 GMT 12
To back up your last paragraph there corokid, only one or two weeks ago there was an article in one of the daily's about how NZ is totally off Japan's (economic radar) and the PM was saying we ought to do something about this etc.
Y'know the average kiwi would think all was ok with our relationship with Japan (eg Japanese tourists and students, All Blacks known in Japan etc). But no.
I guess the scene was set with the 80's nuke thing (Lange being seen as a fool, by the Japanese PM, who understood the reality of strong military protecting economic growth versus our idealistic head in the sand attitude to the those under direct threat, at the front line, trying to make their way in the world) but that's another story.
So fast-forward, NZ, with credible Frigate Navy, credible small air combat force & Orions, exercising alongside with the JSDF annually (and with the US, Sth Korea, Aussie etc) and on the Japanese Govt radar as being there, token but playing its part.
There you go, some 20 plus years lost doing all this thanks to the ANZUS bustup (when 75 Squadron Skyhawks had finally built-up such proficiency and respect in the early 1980's, that the US started to let NZ lead and manage some of the Triad air combat exercises. All outlined in "Topped Gun" etc. See then the practical ramifications of the ANZUS bustup and now 20 odd years later we are trying to catch up with the likes of Japan, but at this point in time have less credible assets which is a huge handicap.
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 8, 2009 20:56:04 GMT 12
All understood phil82. And who am I to hold an opinion anyway. My aim is to be provocative and supportive. ;D I won't comment on your negatives because I think your pride in the blue uniform, your excellent service over decades, and and earlier response to a dig from FlyCookie is proof enough that you have been fighting this battle to keep focus and proper funding on Defence for years, and you will never give up!
Some excellent debate going on. Nige, I think the best advocacy group in Australia is called "The Williams Foundation." You'll find them on line. They regularly put articles in the press to explain stuff to the public. There are several other mobs, but they are mostly single issue pressure groups, therefore lacking in broad respect.
Like your angles, Nige, HAWKEYE and corokid66. Keep up the good banter. There will be a way forward.
I have a question for you though, HAWKEYE! if:
How come we have the same Mother? I know NZ missed a trick at Federation, which was probably to your advantage, but you can't pick your family. Australia and New Zealand definitely have the same Mum, so I figure that makes us brothers...bro!
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 8, 2009 23:47:33 GMT 12
corokid66, so what you are saying is that the domino's believed the domino theory. How could they? it not like they had a major war with infiltration, lack of international border respect, with major human rights violations, backed by foreign powers and real politik in their back yard. I'm sure a farm girl from the waikato , a card carrying member of the communist party who had a stable childhood free from oppression hunger disease and violence knew far better. After all she showed us the correct tree hugging wipe my boyfriends bottom way of life protesting white hienemann's hotrods when they drove up the western motorway in their delivery pajamas. (incidentally when she was first elected she was hopping onto a herc, - so this is a P-3 Orion? - no ma'am that's one of those over there, this is a C-130 Hercules for transport). Winston Churchill had it right, flawed as he was in many ways -(aren't we all) - nations are like human beings - in slow motion. I was not intending to paint it that way Hawkeye. I am going back a lot further than the 50’s and 60’s the era the when the domino theory had currency. The domino theory was in its self talking past the issue and not listening. I intended more to focus on our inability to tune into the cultural dimension. The ‘they’ who you are talking about in this context are the white middle class liberals like our former Prime Minister and the residual influence they possess over what is an acceptable worldview. No wonder they were called the ‘Me” generation.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 9, 2009 3:44:16 GMT 12
All understood phil82. And who am I to hold an opinion anyway. My aim is to be provocative and supportive. ;D I won't comment on your negatives because I think your pride in the blue uniform, your excellent service over decades, and and earlier response to a dig from FlyCookie is proof enough that you have been fighting this battle to keep focus and proper funding on Defence for years, and you will never give up! Some excellent debate going on. Nige, I think the best advocacy group in Australia is called "The Williams Foundation." You'll find them on line. They regularly put articles in the press to explain stuff to the public. There are several other mobs, but they are mostly single issue pressure groups, therefore lacking in broad respect. Like your angles, Nige, HAWKEYE and corokid66. Keep up the good banter. There will be a way forward. I have a question for you though, HAWKEYE! if: How come we have the same Mother? I know NZ missed a trick at Federation, which was probably to your advantage, but you can't pick your family. Australia and New Zealand definitely have the same Mum, so I figure that makes us brothers...bro! There was an 18th Century theorist name of Carl von Clausewitz who wrote the Principles of War which still form part of Staff College curriculum today in the UK military, and that of the Commonwealth. Anyone, in any service, wishing to progress from junior officer level, that is Flt Lt and below, to senior officer level, that is Sqn Ldr and above, will have to do some form of Staff College training, and you can bet your boots that old man Clausewitz will pop up. The ten principles as listed and defined in the 2008 edition of British Defence Doctrine (which also provides explanation) are: Selection and Maintenance of the Aim A single, unambiguous aim is the keystone of successful military operations. Selection and maintenance of the aim is regarded as the master principle of war. Maintenance of Morale Morale is a positive state of mind derived from inspired political and military leadership, a shared sense of purpose and values, well-being, perceptions of worth and group cohesion. Offensive Action Offensive action is the practical way in which a commander seeks to gain advantage, sustain momentum and seize the initiative. Security Security is the provision and maintenance of an operating environment that affords the necessary freedom of action, when and where required, to achieve objectives. Surprise Surprise is the consequence of shock and confusion induced by the deliberate or incidental introduction of the unexpected. Concentration of Force Concentration of force involves the decisive, synchronized application of superior fighting power (conceptual, physical, and moral) to realize intended effects, when and where required. Economy of Effort Economy of effort is the judicious exploitation of manpower, materiel and time in relation to the achievement of objectives. Flexibility Flexibility – the ability to change readily to meet new circumstances – comprises agility, responsiveness, resilience, acuity and adaptability. Cooperation Cooperation entails the incorporation of teamwork and a sharing of dangers, burdens, risks and opportunities in every aspect of warfare. Sustainability To sustain a force is to generate the means by which its fighting power and freedom of action are maintained. These principles of war are commonly used by the armed forces of Commonwealth countries such as Australia. They are all, self -explanatory, but you don't have to be Blind Freddy's brother to see that , in the case of Helen's slash and burn exercise NZ doesn't seem to have any political connection with the very first principle! Defence White Papers tend to be written around what the government of the day wants, and not what it needs, which is why no one takes such paperwork seriously.
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Nov 9, 2009 15:09:37 GMT 12
board=Postwar thread=10017 post=85618 time=1257632269 Hmmm.... you're wielding a pretty broad brush there ON! ANZ is a strategic asset; without a national carrier we would be at the mercy of every other airline in the world, and they would dictate the cost of air freight and travel to the detriment of NZ. They would, without hesitation, screw us in new and previously unimaginable ways, including some previously thought anatomically impossible. ANZ also returns a revenue to the Government. I disagree that we don't pull our weight; we have always been keen to get into other people's wars, and given what we have, we do very well. That is not to say we couldn't do more, but given the lack of a cohesive Defence Policy and the need of all governments to make a choice between defence and domestic spending, more is likely to be less! AS for the ditch, I doubt even Helen saw that as a reason to dump the ACF. Our security is now, and must always be based on collective assurance. Claims that we cannot afford our own security, and insinuations that we are happy for other countries' taxpayers to carry us are, in my opinion, unimpressive! On a more pragmatic approach, all my time in a blue suit taught me that, fundamentally, time wasted on things you can't do anything about are just that; pissing over high walls. The ACF is gone, and all the hypothesizing in the world ain't bringing it back! I realise i'm only focusing on part of your post and I'm sorry phil I dont want to sound offensive but perhaps the time spent in the 'blue suit' has made your opinions toward the topic of the ACF topic come across a tad cynical? You are correct when you say hypothesiszing will not bring back the ACF but it does however stir up the pot and is bringing people together to share common ideas. All actions start with groups of people just like this one passionate about a common interest. We could, I suppose do absolutely nothing at all but then that would certainly not bring back the ACF, remember goverment decision is swayed by public pressure and opinion. we are the public (well at least some of us are civvies i'm sure!)
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 9, 2009 18:29:20 GMT 12
There is/was an organisation which prior to the last election was very active lobying - called the NZ Institute I think it was. They were primarily focused on economic issues but seemed to be all about common sense and had a very worldly view. If they still exist I wonder if they would be a good champion for this cause?
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 9, 2009 18:32:36 GMT 12
board=Postwar thread=10017 post=85618 time=1257632269 Hmmm.... you're wielding a pretty broad brush there ON! ANZ is a strategic asset; without a national carrier we would be at the mercy of every other airline in the world, and they would dictate the cost of air freight and travel to the detriment of NZ. They would, without hesitation, screw us in new and previously unimaginable ways, including some previously thought anatomically impossible. ANZ also returns a revenue to the Government. I disagree that we don't pull our weight; we have always been keen to get into other people's wars, and given what we have, we do very well. That is not to say we couldn't do more, but given the lack of a cohesive Defence Policy and the need of all governments to make a choice between defence and domestic spending, more is likely to be less! AS for the ditch, I doubt even Helen saw that as a reason to dump the ACF. Our security is now, and must always be based on collective assurance. Claims that we cannot afford our own security, and insinuations that we are happy for other countries' taxpayers to carry us are, in my opinion, unimpressive! On a more pragmatic approach, all my time in a blue suit taught me that, fundamentally, time wasted on things you can't do anything about are just that; pissing over high walls. The ACF is gone, and all the hypothesizing in the world ain't bringing it back! I realise i'm only focusing on part of your post and I'm sorry phil I dont want to sound offensive but perhaps the time spent in the 'blue suit' has made your opinions toward the topic of the ACF topic come across a tad cynical? You are correct when you say hypothesiszing will not bring back the ACF but it does however stir up the pot and is bringing people together to share common ideas. All actions start with groups of people just like this one passionate about a common interest. We could, I suppose do absolutely nothing at all but then that would certainly not bring back the ACF, remember goverment decision is swayed by public pressure and opinion. we are the public (well at least some of us are civvies i'm sure!) Cynical? Nah, I'm an eternal optimist! But I'm also a realist,with experience and understanding of just what it would take to convince the Government and Treasury. I spent some years closely observing the machinations of "Disyneyland",[ Defence,] call it what you will and there is no pressure group, no matter how passionate, will alter that system. There will be no 'stirring of the pot" and no change in policy as a result, because there simply isn't the interest to carry it. There are much more vociferous groups around, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, being just one, and remember that 87 per cent of people voted recently against the anti-smacking law. That petition is probably a doorstop in the beehive. Are you seriously suggesting that there is enough interest out there for the general public to convince the politicians we need to spend what will be a huge amount on a couple of squadrons of fast jets? That's not cynicism, just the facts! I think the Air Force has moved on. I think it is a significant point to note that that the RNZAF itself has no interest in arguing a case for a replacement for the ACF. I'll tell you what though, don't pay any heed to me; get the facts direct from the horse's mouth so to speak by writing to the Chief of Air Force, the Defence Minister, PM,and anyone else you may feel can steer you away from my cynicism, and ask the question: "What policy or plans exist currently or in the future to provide the RNZAF with a combat air wing?"
|
|
|
Post by chewy on Nov 9, 2009 19:08:11 GMT 12
My two cents worth. When i was on my government paid for holidays in Asian countries, i enjoyed walking the streets and talking to locals. At that time those people respected us Kiwis for putting our money where our mouth was. We may have had a small force but they respected us for having it. No respect these days.
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 9, 2009 19:29:40 GMT 12
My two cents worth. When i was on my government paid for holidays in Asian countries, i enjoyed walking the streets and talking to locals. At that time those people respected us Kiwis for putting our money where our mouth was. We may have had a small force but they respected us for having it. No respect these days. Chewy, did your Mrs go with you on the government paid vacation as well?
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Nov 9, 2009 19:48:58 GMT 12
I realise i'm only focusing on part of your post and I'm sorry phil I dont want to sound offensive but perhaps the time spent in the 'blue suit' has made your opinions toward the topic of the ACF topic come across a tad cynical? You are correct when you say hypothesiszing will not bring back the ACF but it does however stir up the pot and is bringing people together to share common ideas. All actions start with groups of people just like this one passionate about a common interest. We could, I suppose do absolutely nothing at all but then that would certainly not bring back the ACF, remember goverment decision is swayed by public pressure and opinion. we are the public (well at least some of us are civvies i'm sure!) Cynical? Nah, I'm an eternal optimist! But I'm also a realist,with experience and understanding of just what it would take to convince the Government and Treasury. I spent some years closely observing the machinations of "Disyneyland",[ Defence,] call it what you will and there is no pressure group, no matter how passionate, will alter that system. There will be no 'stirring of the pot" and no change in policy as a result, because there simply isn't the interest to carry it. There are much more vociferous groups around, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, being just one, and remember that 87 per cent of people voted recently against the anti-smacking law. That petition is probably a doorstop in the beehive. Are you seriously suggesting that there is eneough interest out there for the general public to convince the politicians we need to spend what will be a huge amount on a couple of squadrons of fast jets?That's not cynicism, just the facts! I think the Air Force has moved on. I think it is a significant point to note that that the RNZAF itself has no interest in arguing a case for a replacement for the ACF. Yes that is what I am seriously suggesting. The RNZAF has 'moved on' simply because they like yourself dont believe it is worth the expenditure of energy. I dont think it is such an impossible or outrageous task as you seem to. Unlikely perhaps but impossible... I dont think so.
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Nov 9, 2009 20:54:09 GMT 12
There is/was an organisation which prior to the last election was very active lobying - called the NZ Institute I think it was. They were primarily focused on economic issues but seemed to be all about common sense and had a very worldly view. If they still exist I wonder if they would be a good champion for this cause? hmm i'm not sure, had a look at their website looks like mostly economic stuff like you said not to sure if they would be interested in this sort of endeavour?
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 9, 2009 23:28:36 GMT 12
Quote Yogi:"Yes that is what I am seriously suggesting.The RNZAF has 'moved on' simply because they like yourself dont believe it is worth the expenditure of energy.I dont think it is such an impossible or outrageous task as you seem to. Unlikely perhaps but impossible... I dont think so.[/quote]
Yogi, the RNZAF is an arm of Government: which decides what it should do, then acts on professional recommendations on how that is to be achieved within the budget set. At present, that budget doesn't make any provision whatsoever for an air combat element. The air force also has lost all the corporate knowledge and experience of operating such a force; the infrastructure built over a lifetime has gone.
The air force has accepted that, and so have I, so I don't therefore see any point in wasting time on something which won't be changed. I've long held the view in life that , fundamentally,you don't sweat on things you can't change.
I don't, however, expect you or anyone else to accept my view, but you need to start somewhere with your quest, and as I suggested, you should write to the Chief of Air Force, the PM, or anyone at all, and clearly and concisely ask the question: " What policy and plans are there to reintroduce an air combat element into RNZAF operations?" You can publish the replies here!
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 10, 2009 6:31:38 GMT 12
Quote Yogi:"Yes that is what I am seriously suggesting.The RNZAF has 'moved on' simply because they like yourself dont believe it is worth the expenditure of energy.I dont think it is such an impossible or outrageous task as you seem to. Unlikely perhaps but impossible... I dont think so. Yogi, the RNZAF is an arm of Government: which decides what it should do, then acts on professional recommendations on how that is to be achieved within the budget set. At present, that budget doesn't make any provision whatsoever for an air combat element. The air force also has lost all the corporate knowledge and experience of operating such a force; the infrastructure built over a lifetime has gone. The air force has accepted that, and so have I, so I don't therefore see any point in wasting time on something which won't be changed. I've long held the view in life that , fundamentally,you don't sweat on things you can't change. I don't, however, expect you or anyone else to accept my view, but you need to start somewhere with your quest, and as I suggested, you should write to the Chief of Air Force, the PM, or anyone at all, and clearly and concisely ask the question: " What policy and plans are there to reintroduce an air combat element into RNZAF operations?" You can publish the replies here![/quote] I accept what you are saying is the actual truth - the actual situation. I hope no one chokes on their cornflakes when I say this but the question does need to be raised; Maybe then the RNZAF does not have a reason to exist as a stand alone entity? That it should be broken up with 5 sqd and 6 sqd going to the Navy and the rest going to the Army. Become the Air Corp and the Fleet Arm? Sacre Bleu…… I know and it is something I do not personally want. But it if the RNZAF cannot begin to advocate for combat capability over the next few years and begin to have relevancy in a unique combat specialisation then its days might be numbered. That it will have to justify its continuing existence. I hope at least the policy and planning folk with the RNZAF are investigating the introduction of UCAV and USAV technology to save their careers and their organisation. Because there is one political party in parliament who wants a symbolic defence scalp and wants to spend a lot less on defence than at present and switch it to disarmament. I hope I have not upset anyone. Maybe the question to the CAF should be; "In light of New Zealand no longer possessing an air combat force, or that it is undertaking no plans to rebuild an air combat capability, and knowing that all of its other assets and equipment are capable of being operated by the Army and Navy respectively, does the RNZAF have a reason to justify its existence both economically and militarily?
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 10, 2009 7:36:06 GMT 12
As an Army Officer , I cringed every time I heard this in the Mess - Waffle waffle disband the air farce, p-3 to navy Herc's Huey's to us. blah blah waffle. What a load of drivel. If there's one army in the world that is particularly bad in understanding aviation it is the NZ Army - by far. If we disbanded the RNZAF, I'm sure the navy, being as smart as they are, would run a mile from running aircraft, (hang on, don't they already do this with the seasprite!) the army would treat their aircraft like trucks and guess what, after killing a few people in the process, work out they are not up to the job, and quite rightly contract it out. It just would'nt happen, these two services have their own relative areas to keep them busy. The last thing they need is the burden of providing their own airsupport.
Putting aside from the issue of quirky lack of combat capability , the RNZAF is the only service - organisation that can raise train and sustain aviation assets/capability that the Government need to execute it's defence Policy. I agree on the comments of corporate knowledge and infrastructure. Many people have known for some time now that this horse has well and truly bolted.
In my earlier posts I criticised the process of disbanding the A-4. It was a platform based decision not an airpower and capability one. It could still be re-generated, but it will take another 10 -15 yrs and the catalyst to do this in my view will not be lobbying by a pressure group. It will be as always, political necessity and blood money.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 10, 2009 10:51:56 GMT 12
I accept what you are saying is the actual truth - the actual situation. I hope no one chokes on their cornflakes when I say this but the question does need to be raised; Maybe then the RNZAF does not have a reason to exist as a stand alone entity? That it should be broken up with 5 sqd and 6 sqd going to the Navy and the rest going to the Army. Become the Air Corp and the Fleet Arm? Sacre Bleu…… I know and it is something I do not personally want. But it if the RNZAF cannot begin to advocate for combat capability over the next few years and begin to have relevancy in a unique combat specialisation then its days might be numbered. That it will have to justify its continuing existence. I hope at least the policy and planning folk with the RNZAF are investigating the introduction of UCAV and USAV technology to save their careers and their organisation. Because there is one political party in parliament who wants a symbolic defence scalp and wants to spend a lot less on defence than at present and switch it to disarmament. I hope I have not upset anyone. Maybe the question to the CAF should be; "In light of New Zealand no longer possessing an air combat force, or that it is undertaking no plans to rebuild an air combat capability, and knowing that all of its other assets and equipment are capable of being operated by the Army and Navy respectively, does the RNZAF have a reason to justify its existence both economically and militarily? On what basis do you surmise the RNZAF has no reason to exist?
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 10, 2009 11:31:57 GMT 12
There is/was an organisation which prior to the last election was very active lobbying - called the NZ Institute I think it was. They were primarily focused on economic issues but seemed to be all about common sense and had a very worldly view. If they still exist I wonder if they would be a good champion for this cause? hmm i'm not sure, had a look at their website looks like mostly economic stuff like you said not to sure if they would be interested in this sort of endeavor? That was precisely why I suggested them. This needs to be "sold" on the tangible and non-tangible economic benefits to NZ Inc. rather than in terms of security and potential threats as few in NZ "get it". I also agree with others that the RNZAF has moved on and doesn't want to waste any energy on this. That is particularly disappointing given the number of very senior Air Force officers who are ex ACF pilots. I'm sure privately they feel like we do but in the interests of their "career" they have chosen not to rock the boat and just accept the party line.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 10, 2009 13:15:02 GMT 12
hmm i'm not sure, had a look at their website looks like mostly economic stuff like you said not to sure if they would be interested in this sort of endeavor? That was precisely why I suggested them. This needs to be "sold" on the tangible and non-tangible economic benefits to NZ Inc. rather than in terms of security and potential threats as few in NZ "get it". I also agree with others that the RNZAF has moved on and doesn't want to waste any energy on this. That is particularly disappointing given the number of very senior Air Force officers who are ex ACF pilots. I'm sure privately they feel like we do but in the interests of their "career" they have chosen not to rock the boat and just accept the party line. There is no choice for the military [Don], but to accept the party line. Defence policy is not made by the military, and in all cases, all services, they do as they are told to do. The Government cuts the cloth, and we make whatever clothing that fits!
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 10, 2009 15:51:15 GMT 12
There is no choice for the military [Don], but to accept the party line. Defence policy is not made by the military, and in all cases, all services, they do as they are told to do. The Government cuts the cloth, and we make whatever clothing that fits! |
The services have to do this, otherwise we live in a martial state and its a slippery slope from there. You can't tread a fine line it has to be black and white. It means sucking up the good and the bad
|
|