Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[corokid66]

Aug 28, 2010 7:54:25 GMT 12 @sirbean said:

The reason why I dont beleive we need an Air Combat Force is that we had one and a capable one back when the first Gulf war was on and it was not needed then nor was it need in Kosovo nor East Timor.Yet we played a role in all three conflicts and did our part.
I am simply saying put the money towards what we do contribute and do well things like the SAS,Air Transport (newHercules) backed up by perhaps C-27J.
As I said leave Air Combat to the big boys an area that even the United States has "YES" cut back on in a big way.
One only needs to look at their F-22 Raptor only 187 ordered and that number was tried to be cut down several times.
Air Combat is changing fast to the domain of unmanned multi-capable aircraft and as I have said the USN will have on its carrier decks in 2018 a smaller version of the B-2 Spirit this will be unmanned and capable of multi-missions.
New Zealand is capable and should play its part in world affairs but stick to some basic tasks rarther than try to be a jack of all trades.
And as for the budget and other money waste,I can tell you and you need to take the blindfolds off here people that we dont provide good health care as there are plenty of elderly going without basic surgery needs instead they get put on the endless waiting list.....as "YES" our leaders wait for them to die...yes this is fact and it happens here in this country.
And there is a large amount of children in this country who go to school with clothes that dont fit and no warm clothes in the winter,no shoes and a lot with no lunch either....this is just not South Auckland its everywhere.
There are elderly who freeze in their own homes because they cannot afford power over the winter months..............there are good working families who cant afford to take their kids to the doctors in the weekend because of the costs involved.
New Zealand has big issues to sort out well ahead of major defence capital.
At the end of the day everyone blames one another instead of standing up for those who need a hand.

"The reason why I dont beleive we need an Air Combat Force is that we had one and a capable one back when the first Gulf war was on and it was not needed then nor was it need in Kosovo nor East Timor. Yet we played a role in all three conflicts and did our part."

Kosovo – was a NATO op we are not part of NATO – this was 1999 and NZ was still in the US doghouse.
Gulf War I – The RNZAF was right in the middle of Project Kahu where great RNZAF people like Don were performing miracles.
East Timor – Basically Bad timing per planning/tasking arrangements and the fact that the F/A-18 were more suited for a CAP role at the time.

ET when it started out was smack bang in beginning of planning for the transition over to the F-16. For tiny ACF with a small pool of people it was major event. If ET had happened 2-3 years later when we would have had F-16’s we would have played a significant role. Likewise it could be said of Gulf War I, if Kahu had been completed and all 75th Sqd staff bedded down per the new systems then you would have seen also in action the A-4’s even without having to commit a battalion group. In fact in such circumstances deploying a viable fast air squadron is way safer in the body bag stakes than a battalion group. (Especially a battalion group which does not have a priority air support asset).
Timor was the only time since WW2 that we did not deploy fast air with a RNZIR battalion group. We did so in Malaya in the 1950’s and we did so in Borneo between 1965-1966 when Canberra’s provided CAS and Interdiction.

"I am simply saying put the money towards what we do contribute and do well things like the SAS,Air Transport (newHercules) backed up by perhaps C-27J.
As I said leave Air Combat to the big boys an area that even the United States has "YES" cut back on in a big way." "

Basically for everyone else fast air is not a big boys job it is a fundamental. There are a number of countries of similar size to NZ – Denmark, Norway for example that have air combat components in their defence forces – and guess what they contribute them under UN mandated operations. The Scando’s and other smaller western states have used F-16’s in the Stan – the Scando’s have also been flying UN mandated CAP’s in the Baltics.

"One only needs to look at their F-22 Raptor only 187 ordered and that number was tried to be cut down several times.
Air Combat is changing fast to the domain of unmanned multi-capable aircraft and as I have said the USN will have on its carrier decks in 2018 a smaller version of the B-2 Spirit this will be unmanned and capable of multi-missions."

You are missing a significant point. UAV’s are complimentary to manned operations in terms of Air Combat not the replacement. Probably can never be a total replacement under international law due to considerations of what constitutes control and accountability. The main air combat component in the USN in 2018 will be the F/A-18 Shornet. It will also be the main ACC in 2028.

"New Zealand is capable and should play its part in world affairs but stick to some basic tasks rarther than try to be a jack of all trades.
And as for the budget and other money waste,I can tell you and you need to take the blindfolds off here people that we dont provide good health care as there are plenty of elderly going without basic surgery needs instead they get put on the endless waiting list.....as "YES" our leaders wait for them to die...yes this is fact and it happens here in this country."

What a load of sanctimonious crap. Firstly an air combat capability is a baseline in any military operation above UNSC Chapter VI. It is a fundamental requirement of ops at UNSC Chp VII and above. That fact that you probably don’t know the significance of what I just said speaks volumes. Secondly, the health system and the education system are of course cornerstone parts of the NZ socio-political system, but this is not a zero-sum game as they require commercial international trading to be paid for. Q: What secures those international trade routes?

"And there is a large amount of children in this country who go to school with clothes that dont fit and no warm clothes in the winter,no shoes and a lot with no lunch either....this is just not South Auckland its everywhere.
There are elderly who freeze in their own homes because they cannot afford power over the winter months..............there are good working families who cant afford to take their kids to the doctors in the weekend because of the costs involved."

This is after 75 years of the nanny state –eh! No doubt you want more income re-distribution to pay for more of this Sirbean. I suppose you advocate for the Cunniliffe fairies at the bottom of the garden school of economics. I have no time for parents who cannot properly feed and clothe their kids in this Country. I have lived and visited in a number of countries where the poorest people in New Zealand are comfortable middle class by comparison. That is why we have a bloated 20B budget for welfare in this country. That is a budget 10 times bigger than defence which I say provides for far greater benefit to the country that. Defence is part of the productive sector in my view. So this is your justification for not having an air combat component in the NZDF. Something along the lines of we are a poor poor country. Mate do you know how the world actually works.

"New Zealand has big issues to sort out well ahead of major defence capital. At the end of the day everyone blames one another instead of standing up for those who need a hand."

Well the first issue is productivity and the second issue is infrastructure. (Defence is part of a national infrastructure as I will explain.)

It is also a nation far more reliant on trade than any other to pay its way in the world. Trade pays for the Rolls Royce education, health and superannuation systems we all want. We don’t pay for it by asking the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Trading nations, especially wealthy ones like New Zealand and we are wealthy, have the responsibility to assist in the collective security of our trade routes and trading relationships. This is not a zero sum game meaning we can’t have one (socially responsible government spending per health, education, etc..) without the other (committed participation in a regionally co-ordinated defence umbrella) and expect when trouble comes knocking for another sovereign nation with its own problems and agendas to bail us out. If they bail us without us doing a credible contribution you can expect them to take their cut and you can expect them to have significant influence on all external matters that the country has interests in from that point onwards. That is real politique. Those trade routes by air and sea which are integral to our national interests are longer than any other on this globe and are as such potentially the most vunerable in the world. We are also surrounded by a vast ocean full of resources both fisheries and minerals, which as the global resource squeeze escalates puts more pressure on. Believe it or not Defence at the end of the day is about a nation’s sovereign economic protection. One example of how quickly things can turn to economic custard, an economic custard that can implode our aspirations for paying for our health care, education and national super, - is a truculent naval-air space stand-off in the South China Sea or Indian Ocean that shuts down both commercial shipping and aviation routes both into and out of New Zealand. This can happen over 4000km away and still gravely effect us especially when it becomes to protect our vital trading routes. Military capability in the region is not a finite resource and if there was protection required e.g Escorting NZ small strategic oil reserves which are based in Japan 9000km away for example during significant regional standoff - Who is going to do that if we cannot do it ourselves. Japan? Australia? Well the answer is if we do not offer something to the collective we would be last cab off the rank in others with their own interests in providing (gifting) that protection for us. It is a protection that requires both naval and air combat capability. International political and defence arrangements are quid pro quo, namely if one does not contribute one cannot expect to get the benefits.

The air-space/maritime standoff I described has a potential impact that is measured not just in the millions per week in loss of economic activity for New Zealand, but in the hundreds of millions per week and it effects would be economically crippling viz a viz the sustainability of Health, Education and Pensions. And might I point out the shooting war may not have even started. Thankfully with “all in” regional security arrangements – the collective determined will is usually enough to detune the posturing. Furthermore the notion that land, sea and air defence postures are mutually exclusive in an operational sense (and can stand apart from trade relationships, economic utility and regional responsibilities) is very shallow thinking. It is also a defunct and discredited thinking for most security analysts outside the amateurish myopic views of some naïve sections of the kiwi political spectrum.

That is why that it is a fundamental requirement for a modern, wealthy liberal democracy like New Zealand requires and must provide at least one relevant combat capable component for each of its land, sea and air forces as its contribution. The “New Zealand is just small nation – we cannot be one of the big boys” mantra is indeed cop out. Norway and Denmark are comparable and they retain an appropriate defence force which includes combat components. (Norway possesses an ACF essentially as its strategic hedge against incursions into its oil industry – I would like to point out this will also be an inevitability for us next decade anyway if Crown Minerals estimates are accurate). Regional defence assets are finite – a maritime-airspace standoff between belligerents within the wider ASEAN region is a real possibility over the next 30 years especially over territorial and resources disputes and the resource squeeze. The threat to New Zealand is that we have currently no credible way of assisting the regional security umbrella that we have stepped back from engaging anything like we use to. As I said because of its vital role in protecting our economy it is indeed part of our infrastructure that it thus iondirectly helps maintain our wonderful schools and hospitals. Save a school - buy a F-16 eh!!

[yogi]

Yes we should have bought new j model hercs
Yes obtaining new helicopters was a good move, we skipped an entire generation and we arent getting enough of them but hey, better late than never, and something is better than nothing. Who cares about SAR. SAR is SAR. not new zealand defence, I think you are forgetting that our defence forces primary directive is to protect our country the fact that they can perform SAR is great but it's only a secondary capability.

Riddle me this sirbean

Whos going to fly CAS for New Zealand troops on the ground if australia and the united states are tied up, i'm not referring to CURRENT conflicts i'm looking into the future, we CAN NOT rely on other nations to protect us, because at some point they may not be able to!
Drone aircraft are and will remain to be hugely expensive and even when they are mainstream in attack form you can guarantee there will still be eyes in the sky flying CAS because nothing can make a decision like a human on site.

Keep it real.

If we have it we can use it, if we dont even have the capability we are putting ourselves into a corner that we simply dont need to be in.
In my opinion you have a very closed view of the world and it appears you also think it is ok to leave australia to hold the can in regards to air defence and CAS to protect us entirely in the case of a future local conflict.
We need to do our share and take responsibility for ourselves, coming in line with australias defence policies would be a huge step towards this, i'm talking about augmenting our allies not impeding them because at the moment we would be more of a burden than anything.

[sirbean]

You are so out dated I can tell you the clock will not be turned back and there is only one way forward for the NZDF and most of you will hate this but there will be more cuts and savings made in the future years.
Helen Clark made a brave and calculated move that at the time was hated by defence and war lovers.
However ten years on the country has yes moved forward and if you did a poll of the country you would find the vast majority would not favor an Air Combat Force again.
Get over yourselfs.
And I hate to tell you yet again but the welfare system,healthcare and education far outway the needs of defence full stop.
Next you people will be pushing for the Cook Islands to have a defence force...get over it.

[sirbean]

Yogi all good points you make...but I live in the real world and the leaders in Wellington are never going that way...I think in your hearts you know this full well.
This country will only be invovled in low level peacekeeping,fisheries patrol and search and rescue and thats not going to change.
I can see not too far away the job of the Orions going to a private civilian contractor with an off the shelf platform like a Q300.And in future years the ANZAC frigates not been replaced at all.
I am only pointing out what is clearly going to happen,the days gone by are just that and the future is going to be far differant.
Its the people in Wellington who control this not me and both main parties are not big defence advocates.

[corokid66]

Aug 28, 2010 11:33:03 GMT 12 @sirbean said:

Like it or lump it New Zealands future defence force will be more of a coastguard and the general public will not care.The leaders in Wellington are well on track to this and it will not be reversed in any shape or form.
Face it...our Orions do fisheries patrol and search and rescue this is a role that can and trust me will be performed by either a civilian Q300 type or a similar type operated by the NZDF in the future this will be a huge cost saving.
The Hercules should have been replaced and its another half arsed idea to upgrade them at their age....this is proving to be a disaster this upgrade.
The Hercules have served this country and the taxpayer so well and a replacement would not have stirred a ripple in mainstream New Zealand.
As the the Helicopter fleet the NH90 and 109's are a great move just a little short on numbers but I beleive this is been closely looked at.
My argument on here is with Air Combat Aircraft to which we have been without for nearly 10 years with no adverse affect.
When we had an Air Combat Force there was plenty of events that they could and were capable of performing in yet they did not and this dates from Korea till the disbandement.
I have asked a simpl,e question why they were not used...were they offered?
Lets face it what we had and numbers wise was like comparing a small ant on an elephants arse compared to what other countries operate...we are not one of the big boys never have nor will be.
I say lets concentrate on what we do well search and rescue and fisheries patrol,transport and the SAS.
The cold war is over...manned combat aircraft are on there final stint,itsa new world get with it.

“Like it or lump it New Zealands future defence force will be more of a coastguard and the general public will not care. The leaders in Wellington are well on track to this and it will not be reversed in any shape or form.”
Rubbish. There is thankfully a growing awareness and maturity within the country on defence matters. We are less of the naïve lost hippy child of the 1980’s and 1990’s.

“Face it...our Orions do fisheries patrol and search and rescue this is a role that can and trust me will be performed by either a civilian Q300 type or a similar type operated by the NZDF in the future this will be a huge cost saving.”

The Orions do more than that. They have a national security role. In fact a national security of cornerstone importance that wont be discussed publically. It is just that people like you Sirbean who pontificate without any practical or theorectical knowledge of such matters don’t know.

“The Hercules should have been replaced and its another half arsed idea to upgrade them at their age....this is proving to be a disaster this upgrade.
The Hercules have served this country and the taxpayer so well and a replacement would not have stirred a ripple in mainstream New Zealand.”

Agreed. Remember it was the same crowd who did this that bought 105 LAV’s, bought leaky, dodgy Coastguard type vessels and a grey InterIslander ferry for the Navy, and destroyed our combat capability.

“As the the Helicopter fleet the NH90 and 109's are a great move just a little short on numbers but I beleive this is been closely looked at.”
Agreed. Whether they will do anything immediately is another question.

“My argument on here is with Air Combat Aircraft to which we have been without for nearly 10 years with no adverse affect.
When we had an Air Combat Force there was plenty of events that they could and were capable of performing in yet they did not and to this dates from Korea till the disbandement.
I have asked a simple question why they were not used...were they offered?”

I answered this question in the post I made above. No adverse effect eh. Well recently the Army stated that they are having real difficulties in training due to the loss of a frequent and reliable fast air support.

“Lets face it what we had and numbers wise was like comparing a small ant on an elephants arse compared to what other countries operate...we are not one of the big boys never have nor will be.”

What is this big boys stuff? I bet your really wanting to call air combat aircraft “big boys toys” and I am surprised that you have not yet trotted out the we don’t need “fighters” and that no one is going to invade NZ anytime soon line that the average idiot trundles out as an argument. The RNZAF accounted for 20% of Anzac air combat assets. That is a pretty good and fair distribution demographic wise. Also it is not a numbers game as much as you think it is more about tasking, concentration of force, and training.

“I say lets concentrate on what we do well search and rescue and fisheries patrol,transport and the SAS.”

So basically you are saying lets not have a armed defence force other than about a couple of hundred guys with sand coloured berets. A defence force and the need for a defence force is not some glad time play thing where in the lala land you probably inhabit Beano that you get a choice about what is forced on you by external forces and events.

“The cold war is over...manned combat aircraft are on there final stint, its a new world get with it.”

Here is a geo-strategic test for you? Are we still in the Post Cold War era or not? In the previous post I touched on armed conflict law and how it intersects with UAV’s. It makes your manned aircraft are over complete BS. The people who make those sort of statements are usually techheads who know nothing of the technological restraints that exist surround law and armed conflict.

I think you have been what you lefties called being Fisked!

[nige]

Weird, this is sounding like a rehash of the 2000 era proclamation from Dear Leader, "we live in a benign strategic environment" etc, the NZDF future is peace keeping, fisheries patrol etc, Army supported by air and sea transports etc.

Except the strategic environment has changed markedly since then.

The Army on deployment has lamented not having indigenous fast air - as they cannot train as they currently fight etc.

[sirbean]

To be fair I am not a leftie and have been a National party man.
My points here are simple the leaders in Wellington are not going to turn the clock back.
There will never again be an Air Combat Force in this country justified or not.
The future for the Orions and the two ANZAC Frigates is pretty grim aswell.
Hell I have a friend who is an Officier in the Navy and even he said the future of the entire NZDF is going to be a mere coastguard force with part privatisation.

[obiwan27]

I think that corokid66 has made the best, rational argument for our Defence Force and an Air Combat capability that I, as a civilian, have ever read. I hope you made a submission to the Defence review mate.

[sirbean]

Its great that everyone has a point of view on this.
I just know that in 2000 defence issues in this country turned to a new focus and that will never be turned back again.

[furd]

sirbean, you say you are a National party man. From your posts I would say you are a closet Green party man and probaly admire that idiot Green party spokesman for defence. You may even be that person as your rant on defence is so similar. Like too many in this country, when the balloon does go up (and it will one day) you will be the first to squeal about our lack of ability to defend ourselves.

[corokid66]

Aug 28, 2010 14:13:25 GMT 12 @sirbean said:

Its great that everyone has a point of view on this.
I just know that in 2000 defence issues in this country turned to a new focus and that will never be turned back again.

The simple truth sirbean is that people on this website know defence - and you appear not to. However if you read and digested what people are saying your worldviews would change after being challenged.

The focus outlined in 2000 document was incrementally changed quite a bit particularly from 2004 onwards as they recognised the policy seetings were irrelevant. The updates to the DSI and LTDP came thick and fast. methinks probably a bit too much paper writing and shiffling was undertaking during this period and not enough thinking. Then again there was no workable and coherent policy direction undertaken at the time that would have been able to guide the process. Labour should have followed the 1997 White Paper because it was a roadmap to defence relevancy. It would have done a better job than the LTDP and the DSI in mapping out the - If Labour had not razored the defence budget through 1999-2001 for those vital 24 months and kept the GDP spend on defence at 1.3% and not on this predetermined policy setting of 1%, then we could have afforded the 3rd Anzac (offered to us at a cut price $355m, F-16 lease-buy-upgrade and replaced the Upham, and only bought the 72 IFV's that we needed.

The fact is that the original policy you note from 2000 was put together circa 1993-1994 as a policy perscription within the Labour Party and some aspects even go back as far as the 1980's and some Wellington Peace Co-alition ideas from a document iirc about 1988 that included Hager et al.

I doubt very much that NZ will abandon a surface combatant capability. What gives you the basis for that insight - is your whole world view based on "How I wish the world to be in my mind ... so it is" school of logic. The same logic that put us down the current flawed path in defence. A flawed pathway that is currently under review.

And yes Obiwan, I did put in a submission and am pleased to say got some quotes in the submissions response document that came out a couple of months back.

[sirbean]

I still can not see the leaders in Wellington changing direction.
The "Best" we can hope for out of this review is 5 new Hercules within 10 tens and a new advanced multi engined trainer.
The rest is history...I had and still do hope the macchis could play a role but the Defence Minister has pretty much ruled that out in the past.

[corokid66]

Aug 28, 2010 14:59:40 GMT 12 @sirbean said:

I still can not see the leaders in Wellington changing direction.
The "Best" we can hope for out of this review is 5 new Hercules within 10 tens and a new advanced multi engined trainer.
The rest is history...I had and still do hope the macchis could play a role but the Defence Minister has pretty much ruled that out in the past.

Why do you say 5 Hercules? Do you know about 40 Sqd tasking tempo's and what of tasking tempo projections post 2015-2020? I think you are talking nonesense if that is all we are going to get from the Defence White paper - which will outline policy and procurement plans 2010-2035.

[yogi]

Aug 28, 2010 12:40:46 GMT 12 @sirbean said:

Yogi all good points you make...but I live in the real world and the leaders in Wellington are never going that way...I think in your hearts you know this full well.
This country will only be invovled in low level peacekeeping,fisheries patrol and search and rescue and thats not going to change.
I can see not too far away the job of the Orions going to a private civilian contractor with an off the shelf platform like a Q300.And in future years the ANZAC frigates not been replaced at all.
I am only pointing out what is clearly going to happen,the days gone by are just that and the future is going to be far differant.
Its the people in Wellington who control this not me and both main parties are not big defence advocates.

Bean, I think what we are trying to say is that we may not have a choice as to what clashes our defence forces are involved in.
The orions will not be replaced they are in the middle of a $300 million upgrade. They will however probably be augmented with extra shorter range surveillence aircraft (i've been lead to believe there is a capability gap with the orions? perhaps i'm wrong, someone please correct me if I am).

The anzac frigates will definitely be replaced when the time comes, in 20 years or so, and like has already been stated we are an island nation, we will never be without some naval assets it would be like an open invitation to all of asia to rape our fish stocks with impunity.
A totally moronic statement I have to say.

You seem to remark about times gone by alot, I have no idea why, we are not sitting here lamenting about our fine lost airforce. We are talking about how the future is most likely going to be and trying to explain to you where it went wrong and showing screeds of justifying facts to you in support of regaining strike capability, yet you continue to totally ignore all of this information.
Now you are not saying YOU dont think we need an ACF, you are saying the pollies will never bring it back, well how do you know? We are not saying they are, we are saying they SHOULD and WHY, what a total cop out, stick to your guns at least.

F.Y.I Public opinion and outright need drives policy and the pollies will always do whatever is in their best interest.

[sirbean]

With the Hercules we only have five now and that number has been fine since 1965 and I see no reason they would replace with more or less.
In saying that they did replace 19 helicopters with 13 so who truely knows,and it is all wishful saying at best.
We know there will some form of advanced multi engine trainer hopefully one with a rear ramp....it would be my guess that this aircraft could be an off the shelf type,from a cost saving point of view a Q300 would be ideal as it could be serviced by Air Nelson,the bad news is the Q300 isno longer in production only the 80 seater Q400.
Only time will tell what if any thing happens but dont hold out for much.

[yogi]

I'm assuming through the lack of reply to my post that you agree with me sirbean?

(sorry guys now i'm the troll)

[Dave Homewood]

Wow, sirbean, I have never seen anyone achieve a low rating of -11 in the Karma before, and in just a few days.

[smithy]

Aug 28, 2010 19:00:11 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Wow, sirbean, I have never seen anyone achieve a low rating of -11 in the Karma before, and in just a few days.

Yeah but it's all cool man you know because like this is a benign strategic environment.

[sirbean]

All is good and its great to have such views on this subject.
All the military might in the world never stopped the 9/11 attacks and nor has the rash decision to invade another country by the US paid any dividends...just like Vietnam this will be another embarrissing and costly misadventure and you can add Iraq to that list aswell.
We as a country need to focus as I have said on small peacekeeping issues,fisheries patrol,transport and search and rescue.
You guys we have more chance in the next few years of a major earth quake or volcanic eruption and no Orion or fast jet squadron will be of any use in that situation....get real.
The past Government was on track...and sorry guys but this one will not change direction either...so I guess if you not happy go live somewhere else.

[Dave Homewood]

How about you just go post somewhere else, you don't seem to have any interest in NZ military aviation so you're in totally the wrong forum.