|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 11, 2023 20:03:04 GMT 12
The focus is whether the NZDF is combat ready. Once a war breaks out, it almost doesn’t matter how we got there, it only matters if the military is capable of meeting the enemy. Aside from the NZSAS, I don't think the NZDF has been combat ready for decades. Even when I was in the RNZAF thirty years ago it was very marginal. We could have and would have stood up to any threat but we'd probably not have lasted long, and our alliances had totally broken down thanks to the withdrawal from ANZUS. But since then we have lost our combat jets, most of our tactical air transport fleet, two frigates, our tanks and APCs, lots of frontline ad support units, most of our bases and half our military trades. New Zealand's transport and medical efforts in the Gulf War was excellent but our Skyhawk squadron was also going and then was stood down. Since then apart from the SAS all military deployments to hotspots have been "peace keeping" and "rebuilding". They have not been combat deployments. On the rare occasions those deployments have found themselves in combat situations the NZDF has taken casualties. In one of the worst of those the footage was leaked showing that our supposedly highly trained soldiers were disorganised, confused, and panicked, and their poor training and lack of experience led to deaths. I think even a small country like Fiji could quite easily take New Zealand if it were just a military vs military fight. Australia could take NZ in a single day. And it does not bear thinking about if a carrier fleet from China suddenly turned up with the intent to invade. Our only saving grace is China already owns most of the real estate and businesses in NZ (and a lot of the politicians) so they won't want to attack and damage their own assets. |
|
|
|
Post by machina on Aug 11, 2023 20:35:37 GMT 12
The focus is whether the NZDF is combat ready. Once a war breaks out, it almost doesn’t matter how we got there, it only matters if the military is capable of meeting the enemy. Aside from the NZSAS, I don't think the NZDF has been combat ready for decades. Even when I was in the RNZAF thirty years ago it was very marginal. We could have and would have stood up to any threat but we'd probably not have lasted long, and our alliances had totally broken down thanks to the withdrawal from ANZUS. But since then we have lost our combat jets, most of our tactical air transport fleet, two frigates, our tanks and APCs, lots of frontline ad support units, most of our bases and half our military trades. New Zealand's transport and medical efforts in the Gulf War was excellent but our Skyhawk squadron was also going and then was stood down. Since then apart from the SAS all military deployments to hotspots have been "peace keeping" and "rebuilding". They have not been combat deployments. On the rare occasions those deployments have found themselves in combat situations the NZDF has taken casualties. In one of the worst of those the footage was leaked showing that our supposedly highly trained soldiers were disorganised, confused, and panicked, and their poor training and lack of experience led to deaths. I think even a small country like Fiji could quite easily take New Zealand if it were just a military vs military fight. Australia could take NZ in a single day. And it does not bear thinking about if a carrier fleet from China suddenly turned up with the intent to invade. Our only saving grace is China already owns most of the real estate and businesses in NZ (and a lot of the politicians) so they won't want to attack and damage their own assets. You’re pushing at an open door with me on all that. I was just making an attempt to keep things on track with what these new publications and announcements are stating. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 11, 2023 21:06:49 GMT 12
Yep. And I am not arguing. Just saying. I shall shut up now.
|
|
|
|
Post by machina on Aug 11, 2023 21:42:42 GMT 12
Same!  |
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Aug 12, 2023 0:21:33 GMT 12
Here's a suggestion for NZDF, save huge amount of time, money and hassle by dropping that "climate crisis" crap out of it. Put that money into your people and equipment! I agree ... but to be fair that is how you can sell it to the masses... one of the selling points fr Aussies 2 LHD's was for responding to Climate crisis situations ie Cyclone season etc... and if we can use the same to get a proper LPD's with well deck as per DCP2019 then sure I am for that.
I belong to the same school of thought, so I don't see another realistic path for the NZDF to potentially obtain the funding for renewing existing capabilities. (But Dave's comments are also valid).
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Aug 12, 2023 10:01:56 GMT 12
Or our strike wing bear  |
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Aug 12, 2023 12:29:21 GMT 12
Where have you been for the past three years? Head in the sand? So, no evidence then! Errol Surely you've heard the phrase 'team of 55 million'? Stevie Wonder could see the pro-Govt reporting in much of NZ's mainstream media or worse yet - non-reporting of bluffs and blunders  www.newsroom.co.nz/taxpayers-to-pay-55m-for-better-journalism |
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Aug 12, 2023 14:02:31 GMT 12
The focus is whether the NZDF is combat ready. Once a war breaks out, it almost doesn’t matter how we got there, it only matters if the military is capable of meeting the enemy. Aside from the NZSAS, I don't think the NZDF has been combat ready for decades. Even when I was in the RNZAF thirty years ago it was very marginal. We could have and would have stood up to any threat but we'd probably not have lasted long, and our alliances had totally broken down thanks to the withdrawal from ANZUS. But since then we have lost our combat jets, most of our tactical air transport fleet, two frigates, our tanks and APCs, lots of frontline ad support units, most of our bases and half our military trades. New Zealand's transport and medical efforts in the Gulf War was excellent but our Skyhawk squadron was also going and then was stood down. Since then apart from the SAS all military deployments to hotspots have been "peace keeping" and "rebuilding". They have not been combat deployments. On the rare occasions those deployments have found themselves in combat situations the NZDF has taken casualties. In one of the worst of those the footage was leaked showing that our supposedly highly trained soldiers were disorganised, confused, and panicked, and their poor training and lack of experience led to deaths. I think even a small country like Fiji could quite easily take New Zealand if it were just a military vs military fight. Australia could take NZ in a single day. And it does not bear thinking about if a carrier fleet from China suddenly turned up with the intent to invade. Our only saving grace is China already owns most of the real estate and businesses in NZ (and a lot of the politicians) so they won't want to attack and damage their own assets. Dave - don't forget "Strike Force Lasagna" is on standby and ready to deploy once they've finished doing their hair, nails and makeup. They will confuse the enemy with wokery and a dash of tokenism and drive them away to another easier country....  |
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Aug 12, 2023 14:15:47 GMT 12
Hmm, the 'mainstream media's extensive and critical reporting on the indiscretions of government ministers Nash and Wood et al hardly supports your contention. Errol |
|
|
|
Post by alanster on Aug 12, 2023 15:01:59 GMT 12
One of the big problems with this country is the government only does what it says the "masses" want, not what the country actually needs regardless of public opinion - and that public opinion has already been swayed by government over the years anyway into thinking what the govt wants them to think, especially these days when they control most of the media. Labour will have an uphill battle trying to persuade New Zealanders we need to expand the Defence Force after years of them brainwashing the people into thinking we're safe and isolated and we do not need such costly and unnecessary things as Defence. The next government will be fighting the same battle against a public subdued into ignorance, and the media who will fight it all the way if National tries it. The usual bullshit of "the money is better spent on health and education" will be trotted out. Well the last few years has made it abundantly clear that New Zealand is not spending the money on health or education when they funnel it away from Defence. Health has been placed into the same level of crisis as defence by government policy, and education in NZ is at its worst point ever. So where has the money gone? This is why we do not need the "climate crisis" crap sucking up more of the money that needs to be spent of actual defence. Let the skilled, trained and experienced Defence personnel get on with their jobs, and forget all the pie in the sky climate crap. Some govt department with its own budget should handle that waste of time and money. Well said Dave, the focus must be on the defence aspect without the un-necessary "climate emergency" sideshow. It's a wonder this lot haven't just made a simple policy of welcoming any invaders by the team of 5 million with some lovely teddy bears in their windows  I fear the incoming Govt will be in damage-control mode for some time but hopefully defence gets a much needed push before too long. National are the ones who normally slash defence spending. Along with spending on everything else, including health and education. It’s part of their neoliberal ideology. |
|
|
|
Post by alanster on Aug 12, 2023 15:12:00 GMT 12
Anyway, Ron Mark made climate change a big pillar of justification for increased defence spending. Climate change directly leads to political instability, wars and failed states. A defence force geared up to respond to that is simply common sense and prudent strategy.
In particular, the Navy needs two proper LHD replacements for the Canterbury. That’s where the latest National Security Strategy is heading - the biggest military build-up in NZ in 30 years.
I do note ACT (and NZF) policy is to increase defence spending to 2% of GDP. If there is a change of government, the likely support-party is good for defence. The other potential support party is NZF. Failing that, Labour is far more pro-defence spending (surprisingly enough) than National. However, the NSS might well change things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deane B on Aug 17, 2023 21:00:13 GMT 12
Well said Dave, the focus must be on the defence aspect without the un-necessary "climate emergency" sideshow. It's a wonder this lot haven't just made a simple policy of welcoming any invaders by the team of 5 million with some lovely teddy bears in their windows I fear the incoming Govt will be in damage-control mode for some time but hopefully defence gets a much needed push before too long. National are the ones who normally slash defence spending. Along with spending on everything else, including health and education. It’s part of their neoliberal ideology. You seem to overlook the fact National were the ones who signed off the F16 purchase. Then in 2016 pledged $20 Billion to re-equip the defence force which included the P-3 and C-130 replacements. |
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 18, 2023 10:59:16 GMT 12
Like it or not Climate/HADR is going to play its part in selection for NZDF.
I agree with Dave Climate considerations should be taken out of the equation when considering which bit of kit to buy, but also agree witj what NighthawK said about the justification of the equipment.
Remember the LHD were justified by AusGov because of the realisation of ET in 1999 what the ADF could and could not do and the defence of Australia mindset nearly crippled Ausgov intentions and its ability to act.
First and foremost, the LHD were bought for its combat role with HADR its secondary role this is what NightHawk is saying you want x equipment how can we sell it to the politicians and general public. if you read some of the news articles about the renewal of the NZ tactical airlift there was a emphasis on HADR in the media.
What really needs to happen is the sea blindness googles need to be taken of in respect to RNZN MFU. how would NZ population react if its trade routes were suddenly stopped or vastly restricted to exports and imports, those trade routes are looking more important now and those MFU are going to be needed more than ever two Anzacs is not going to cut it?
if NZG wants a presence then 3 MFU is the minimum buy in you continue to double that if you want a forward presence and and rear 6 MFU to have two constanly out showing the flag. these MFU are doing both protection of trade routes for NZ and at the samr time can conduct fisheries patrols generating good will with the pacfic nations.
We saw recently how the Chinese Coast Guard/fishing fleets are intimidating smaller countries it is how NZG use the media on dual use of it assets. As someone suggested the hard part is going to be to realign the narrative that has been set over the last 30/40 years its hard its a little easier in Australia but as we have seen with the current ALP in reducing ADF capabilty by manipulating the media narrative thats were the the funding war is taking place
|
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Aug 18, 2023 12:24:28 GMT 12
. . . as we have seen with the current ALP in reducing ADF capabilty by manipulating the media narrative thats were the the funding war is taking place Seems unlikely given the Murdoch empire's hold over politics and the media amounts to well over 50% of the country's newspapers, not to mention its ownership of pay TV company Foxtel and a conservative 24-hour channel, Sky News Australia, which has amassed more than 3 million subscribers on YouTube alone? Errol |
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 18, 2023 21:00:20 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Aug 19, 2023 9:40:07 GMT 12
We need to ensure that we grow the back end industrial support as well the pointy end. There is probably as case for the likely new government funded dry dock to be made a defense asset (unless there is a government organisation for owning strategic assets).
|
|
|
|
Post by alanster on Aug 25, 2023 23:40:02 GMT 12
National are the ones who normally slash defence spending. Along with spending on everything else, including health and education. It’s part of their neoliberal ideology. You seem to overlook the fact National were the ones who signed off the F16 purchase. Then in 2016 pledged $20 Billion to re-equip the defence force which included the P-3 and C-130 replacements. Yes I did overlook it. 1. Yep I supported the F-16 purchases. Terrible decision by the Clark govt. They were pretty useless on defence overall. 2. $20 billion over 20 odd years is nothing. Needs to be far higher. |
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 26, 2023 8:19:35 GMT 12
You seem to overlook the fact National were the ones who signed off the F16 purchase. Then in 2016 pledged $20 Billion to re-equip the defence force which included the P-3 and C-130 replacements. Yes I did overlook it. 1. Yep I supported the F-16 purchases. Terrible decision by the Clark govt. They were pretty useless on defence overall. 2. $20 billion over 20 odd years is nothing. Needs to be far higher. I would agree with that, the 2023 buget is NZD6 billion so by the above its an extra NZD 1 billion per year that alone will be eaten by wages and inflation. The new C130j fleet cost 1.5b thats not including sustainment. wonder what the instalment plan is to pay for them 5 years? |
|
|
|
Post by alanster on Oct 27, 2023 12:04:50 GMT 12
 Overall, the new government is good for defence if NZF & ACT get their way. National is the penny-pincher and will likely keep the status quo spending (which was still an uplift under Labour given all the once-in-a-generation purchases that had to be made). If spending is to increase to 2%, what kind of bang for Buck could the NZDF get? An extra frigate for the Navy? An earlier replacement for the Canterbury and an extra LHD? Doubt the airforce would get much more. Drones? |
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Oct 27, 2023 13:27:31 GMT 12
Overall, the new government is good for defence if NZF & ACT get their way. National is the penny-pincher and will likely keep the status quo spending (which was still an uplift under Labour given all the once-in-a-generation purchases that had to be made). If spending is to increase to 2%, what kind of bang for Buck could the NZDF get? An extra frigate for the Navy? An earlier replacement for the Canterbury and an extra LHD? Doubt the airforce would get much more. Drones? Far too early to jump to that conclusion I'd say - the new Govt will have to make some tough decisions to get the country out of the financial hole dug by the incompetent fish & chip shop worker and her cohort of buffoons. No one would like to see NZ's defence spending to increase more than me but the recovery will take some time and hopefully within their 2nd or 3rd term they can get that percentage closer to 2%. |
|
