Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[Dave Homewood]

Sept 13, 2010 9:57:16 GMT 12 oldnavy said:

Despite all the cuts and self destruction, much of what you say was needed in the late 30s is not needed now. Instead of 350+ new (to you) aircraft, 2 new bases and several major base upgrades, you need a refurbished, already owned jet trainer and 12-20 fast jets. Everything else you need is still in place. The air force you have now is like a rifle without a barrel. Just fit a new or replacement barrel and you'll be fine. It won't cost you NZ$14K each, especially if it takes several years.

Sorry, I may have put the message across wrongly, what I meant was if the people of New Zealand today were put in the situation that the people of NZ were put in in the late 1930's with such a massive bill, they would not wear it. I was highlighting the change in attitude. True not everyone agreed with the Savage government back then, in many respects he was a complete idiot and a sham like all politicians and he certainly had his critics at the time, but they certainly did well to come out of a worse economic position than we're now in and to convince the population they needed this all new shiny Air Force.

Amazingly the 350 aircraft and new bases planned in 1937-39 ended up just the tip of the iceberg and they ended up with dozens more bases and thousands of aeroplanes by the wars end.

Our current Air Force owns just five Hercules, two Boeings, six Orions, 13 Iroquois, five Sioux, the Historic Flight trainers and five "Navy" Seasprites. Try to convince the people of NZ they need to spend just $10 million to add to the fleet and many of them would balk at the price.

[kiwiscanfly]

Very true......... it needs to be done in a way that people see a value for money, but as it has been said before it's a lack of education that leads people to not want to spend on the Defense Force and if people could see what an amazing job the NZDF and the RNZAF do they would be more willing to see tax dollars spent on the NZDF, they just need to see how it benefits them. People won't be willing to spend if they don't get in return.

[yogi]

Sometimes people just need to be told what they want.

If the pollies really cared about their country they would just grow a set and damn the consequences (likely there would be none very little to speak of anyway), the average new zealander has no idea what we need and how much it should cost.

[luke6745]

Sept 13, 2010 13:31:33 GMT 12 kiwiscanfly said:

Well if we are talking about getting a wish list of the following:
1) 3 light transports or MPA's
2) 10 Advanced trainers PC-21's
3) 5 more A109's armed
4) 2 more NH90's

TBH, I think the macchis upgraded to the CD standard would be a better option. We could have a cheap little ACF then

[kiwiscanfly]

Cheap yes to start off with yes but a jet is far more expensive to run than a gas turbine like the Tucano or PC-21.

[luke6745]

But with a fast jet you can respond to emergencies quicker than a Tucano could should the need arise.

[kiwirico]

Sept 13, 2010 13:31:33 GMT 12 kiwiscanfly said:

Well if we are talking about getting a wish list of the following:
1) 3 light transports or MPA's
2) 10 Advanced trainers PC-21's
3) 5 more A109's armed
4) 2 more NH90's

What could that cost each NZ'er............. if you can do the same math with this Dave

Very well, 3 EADS C-235 transport with some MPA capability, 5 to 8 more armed A.109's, 2 more C-SAR configured NH-90's and..... 10 EMBRAER Super Tucanos (which are already wired for weapons, unlike the Swiss PC-21's which are not armed!!!).

Perhaps a third Boeing 757 would be added.

Hope some one from NZ Government takes me serious ;D

cheers

[kiwiscanfly]

If that was the list in the white paper I think it would faint almost to good to be true but we will fond out soon how close we are, as long as they don't delay it again!! 30 days to go

[oldnavy]

Thanks Dave H, your point is understood better now, and it is a good observation with several sensible ideas from other forumites as follow up.

On Tucano/PC21 versus a jet, the operating cost differential is much less than claimed by the prop advocates. In terms of training or fighting, the only good thing about turbo-prop trainers is that modern ones are designed to have jet-like handling characteristics. The astute Macchi salesmen observe that if you want jet-like handling characteristics, why not buy a jet? And you guys already have jets!

[yogi]

Yup its been said several times already but I also think its obvious we should use the macchi, I mean we already have them, crikey, use them already!

[Calum]

I'm coming in late here but I wouldn't waste money on an advanced trainer unless it was going to used to restart a ACF. If not spend the money elsewhere

IMHO flight training, using a military designed syllabus , up to conversion to operational type, is a task that can be done better and cheaper by a contractor.

[oldnavy]

Calum wrote

IMHO flight training, using a military designed syllabus , up to conversion to operational type, is a task that can be done better and cheaper by a contractor.

A truism. No argument...but in this day and age, the same can be said for any military air mission not directly related to the battle zone. The question effectively being asked is whether NZ needs an air force or not. IMO this debate has gone past that.

[Dave Homewood]

New Zealand needs an Air Force to train all the people who get out and work for contractors to the military.

[Dave Homewood]

Here's a little tempter for the Pilatus fans...

[kiwiscanfly]

Please Mr Mapp can we have some and were did this photo come from?? cleaver photo-editing?

[arclight]

GUYS APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE FOR THE HUGE BIT OF WRITING...

[arclight]

NZ WHITE PAPER – AND DEFENSE RELATIONSHIP WITH AUSTRALIA
I see that a few of our Australian cousins visit this site and provide good incite, both regarding their own military, and also into the state of our defence relationship. I feel a bit guilty though whenever they point-out that, “Kiwis aren’t pulling their weight anymore” and that they feel quite “let down” by us because of the lack of reciprocity. Also, I’m aware that many young Australians are now growing-up believing that “ANZAC” was just the name for Aussie ‘diggers’, with no reference to the Kiwis that fought beside them – so I guess things have been changing between us. So, I’m going to try to give a New Zealand position in the hope of explaining at least part of the reason why NZ is not re-equipping its forces, and why we are evolving differently.

COLD WAR
This was a conventional threat and as such, required us to maintain strong alliances, engaging in far-off wars, particularly in Asia, wars which changed us and made us realise that they were largely unnecessary, if not completely wrong.

During the Cold War, NZ needed to maintain a large number of military capabilities and units, as the threat was truly upon us, communist submarines often frequented our waters. For this reason we possessed a well-equipped, but comparatively small ground force + a number of up-to-date Frigates, Anti-Submarine P3 Orions, Fighter/Bomber Skyhawks, light-attack/training aircraft, utility groups (logistical/transport choppers/aircraft), as well as various other conventional weapons, all of which were paid with by borrowing huge amounts of money.

So in this sense, for NZ to now continue to build-up its force strength against the only foreseeable conventional threat – China – would be absolutely insane. Communist China will be our most important trading partner in the near future, and judging by immigration statistics, ethnic-Chinese will make-up a significant proportion of our population if the current trends continue (which they obviously will).

DEMOGRAPHICS - PHYSICAL - ECONOMIC - POLITICAL - SOCIAL FACTORS

Physically, NZ is a small, semi-isolated, country and does not share common borders with Muslim nations (e.g. Australia – Indonesia, Malaysia) and we are far less important to America’s foreign policy (especially in regard to Taiwan, whereas, Japan, Australia, and South Korea are of critical importance to deterrence). Also Australia is the world’s largest supplier of high-quality Uranium, which is also strategically important for the USA and many other world powers – so in many ways Australia really needs protecting, they are a big juicy target as they possess so much.

Economically, NZ doesn’t possess the same economic capacity as our neighbour. Thus, as military equipment increases in price each year, we are unable to keep up with the cost – even if we wanted to – because most of it is completely out of our price range and will likely never be used in conventional war.

Politically, NZ is well thought of in the world because we have made a point of rejecting war to solve problems or to ‘build a better tomorrow’, or to defend what U.S. Presidents call “freedom”, we rejected nuclear weapons, support human rights and are an example to all other post-colonial societies of how to respect and support indigenous peoples (although, arguably it has cost the nation financially as a whole), we practice humanitarianism accepting large groups are refugees who have nowhere else to go (we don’t choose to shut them out), and we believe in the principles of the United Nations (i.e. not conducting illegal wars for oil in the Middle East (like the US) or in order to gain benefits such as Free Trade Agreements (like Australia) which in hindsight, we probably should have! Lol

I use to love to see the old NZ Skyhawks flying overhead, it was always a moment which made me and many other Kiwis feels patriotism, and confidence in our country. However, in order to support our aging population and the many new challenges associated with an increasingly globablised world, we couldn’t afford to keep them. This is pretty much why NZ is not investing in large-scale military programmes unless they are completely necessary. And even though we may have a proud tradition of going to war and flying the flag, well, the world has changed so much that for us, it really isn’t possible anymore, at least not unless we are supported and given authorization by the United Nations.

So, unfortunately we can no longer walk the same path, and that is a shame, but that's just the reality of things and the upcoming NZ Govt White Paper will not change this.

[arclight]

ANY COMMENTS, ESPECIALLY FROM THE AUSSIES WOULD BE COOL -THIS IS ARCLIGHT

[oldnavy]

Nice words Arclight, and a good story. Indeed, it brings a great big sentimental tear to my eye to finally realise I got it all wrong about the Kiwi push to make the world a better place.

It's not withdrawal! It's leading from the front! ;D

On the other hand, it reminds me of the story about the little boy trying to hold back the tide with his finger in the dyke.

Your implication is that NZ is a more peace loving, caring nation than anywhere else.

I only make one point really, but in doing so 2 issues arise.

You say:

So in this sense, for NZ to now continue to build-up its force strength against the only foreseeable conventional threat – China – would be absolutely insane.

So China is your only a threat, and to defend against China is insane. Okay, you choose to give in. I have talked about this before and have been soundly bollocked, but you started it. The answer you seek is to stop spending anything on defence.

In fact, hand the running of your country over to someone else. If they are so benign, why not invite China to set up Government for you?

The words you are using to claim Kiwi uniqueness in the levels of care and peace you want to share sound like every politician on the planet! Every 1st world country makes exactly the same claims, and because they are generally bigger, with more options available than just the nice sounding words, they tend to have much more effect than NZ.

The second issue is, of course, that in this modern world identifying one potential aggressor to justify letting your guard down (because they will never aggress) leaves you wide open to any crackpot individual or organisation who may want to take over or attack for any reason. To be frank, the world is simply not all full of peace and Kiwi love, and being a little distant doesn't count for much in a global economy.

(Off my topic, but still on yours, hiding behind a corrupt organisation like the UN by quoting its original ideals doesn't make that corrupt organisation any less corrupt today. This would be the same UN that only censures western democracies like the USA, UK and Australia for human rights abuses whilst ignoring the excesses of all the despots in the 3rd World. Right. )

[yak2]

A couple of observations/commentss......NZ WHITE PAPER – AND DEFENSE RELATIONSHIP WITH AUSTRALIA
, “Kiwis aren’t pulling their weight anymore” and that they feel quite “let down” by us because of the lack of reciprocity. You should. We mention this because we care. Part of that care is self interest. If Australia was ever invaded, you know who would be next.
Also, I’m aware that many young Australians are now growing-up believing that “ANZAC” was just the name for Aussie ‘diggers’, with no reference to the Kiwis that fought beside them – so I guess things have been changing between us.
My impression is that there is a renewed interest by the young in ANZAC day and its history. No reason to think that NZ is being overlooked/ignored. One of the largest migrant groups in Australia are Kiwi's, and for that reason alone, I am sure your perception is incorrect.

COLD WAR
This was a conventional threat and as such, required us to maintain strong alliances, engaging in far-off wars, particularly in Asia, wars which changed us and made us realise that they were largely unnecessary, if not completely wrong.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing

During the Cold War, NZ needed to maintain a large number of military capabilities and units, as the threat was truly upon us, communist submarines often frequented our waters. For this reason we possessed a well-equipped, but comparatively small ground force + a number of up-to-date Frigates, Anti-Submarine P3 Orions, Fighter/Bomber Skyhawks, light-attack/training aircraft, utility groups (logistical/transport choppers/aircraft), as well as various other conventional weapons, all of which were paid with by borrowing huge amounts of money.
And you honored your treaty obligations

So in this sense, for NZ to now continue to build-up its force strength against the only foreseeable conventional threat – China – would be absolutely insane.
What about India? What about the threat of terrorism?

Communist China will be our most important trading partner in the near future,
Already is for Australia

and judging by immigration statistics, ethnic-Chinese will make-up a significant proportion of our population if the current trends continue (which they obviously will).
Same here

Physically, NZ is a small, semi-isolated, country and does not share common borders with Muslim nations (e.g. Australia – Indonesia, Malaysia)
Nor does Australia

Economically, NZ doesn’t possess the same economic capacity as our neighbour. Thus, as military equipment increases in price each year, we are unable to keep up with the cost – even if we wanted to – because most of it is completely out of our price range and will likely never be used in conventional war.
To me this is like saying you live in a nice house, it has increased substantially in value over time, and you can no longer afford insurance. It is a cop out.

Politically, NZ is well thought of in the world because we have made a point of rejecting war to solve problems or to ‘build a better tomorrow’, or to defend what U.S. Presidents call “freedom”,
this is your perception of NZ

we rejected nuclear weapons,
and it is still costing you eg Skyhawks sale

support human rights and are an example to all other post-colonial societies of how to respect and support indigenous peoples
again, your perception of yourselves

we practice humanitarianism accepting large groups are refugees who have nowhere else to go (we don’t choose to shut them out),
I sense a swipe at your incompassionate neighbour here. Facts are Australia accepts significantly more refugees in both real and % terms than NZ. Don't be confused by the politics of boat refugees ( far more illegals arrive here by air). The issue is people smuggling, for which there are no easy answers.

and we believe in the principles of the United Nations (i.e. not conducting illegal wars for oil in the Middle East (like the US) or in order to gain benefits such as Free Trade Agreements (like Australia)
oh really? What, where and when?

I use to love to see the old NZ Skyhawks flying overhead, it was always a moment which made me and many other Kiwis feels patriotism, and confidence in our country. However, in order to support our aging population
You are not Robinson Crusoe here

and the many new challenges associated with an increasingly globablised world, we couldn’t afford to keep them. This is pretty much why NZ is not investing in large-scale
why does it have to be large scale?

military programmes unless they are completely necessary. And even though we may have a proud tradition of going to war and flying the flag, well, the world has changed so much that for us, it really isn’t possible anymore, at least not unless we are supported and given authorization by the United Nations.
OMG. Waiting for instructions from the UN. You must be joking!