Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[oldnavy]

;D

I think the Boeing 757 has been a very good purchase, hasn't it?

;D

But the 757 is an airliner bought specifically to get the boys ready for Air New Zealand. I suppose it does that job pretty well

[shorty]

Quote"What the hell happened?"
That should read"What the? Helen happened!"

[kiwiscanfly]

there are many types of isms out there, communism, Capitalism, Marxism. What the NZDF and RNZAF suffered from was Helenism. and all of the defense cuts that came with it But I agree dave the 757 was a good buy and one of the few projects that has gone smoothly. It has the ability to perform a large variety of roles with the sort of rage the we require. (AME, Cargo, personnel, VIP....ect) we could use with one more I reckon I remember an article in an Air Forces Monthly magazine titled "RNZAF suffer lack of transport capability", I also remember during the Thailand incident the RNZAF had to send a C-130 because neither of the 757's were available. and just to top it off on 3 news there was an article on the Air Force not having enough planes in general to take part in overseas exercises this year I bet the people in the RNZAF have to work twice as hard because of all this........ I blame Helen.

[yogi]

Sept 30, 2010 14:12:36 GMT 12 corsair67 said:

Sept 30, 2010 7:56:40 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

The Government is clearly waiting for you lot to decide on which aircraft we need before proceeding with releasing the plan.

Yes, I can just see Wayne Mapp and John Key sitting in front of their computers in the Beehive, and logging into WoNZ to get some tips on what a future NZDF should look like, and what direction it should be heading in.

By the time they'd finished noting down all that has been posted here, I think they'd end up with this:

RNZAF -

1SQN: 20 B-1B bombers.

2SQN: 14 JAS-39 Gripen fighters.

3SQN: 15 NH-90 and 10 A109 helicopters.

5SQN: 6 P-8 maritime patrol aircraft.

14SQN: 12 BAe 100 series Hawk trainers.

40SQN: 8 C130J transports.

41SQN: 8 CN-235/95 transports.

42SQN: 5 Q400 vip/general transports.

75SQN: 14 F-15I fighter/attack aircraft.

Farm basic training off to a private mob, and re-equip PTS/CFS with PC-21/T-6B/Tacano type turbine trainers.


Army -

Update all light and medium weapons.

New anti-tank capability.

New artillery.

12 new Main Battle Tanks.

Sell half the LAVS, and replace them with something far more useful to the boys on the ground, 14 armed recon helicopters.


RNZN -

Ditch Canterbury, and replace it with a real military designed and built amphibious capability. Name the real ship HMNZS New Zealand.

Form an expeditionary unit of RNZN Marines, with their own air support in the form of helicopters (NH-90) and some surplus refurbished AV-8Bs/GR-9 Harriers to operate off HMNZS New Zealand, until F-35Bs are available.

Buy one, maybe two, new frigates (name one HMNZS Canterbury), and extra off-shore patrol boats.


Then - look out world, the NZDF is back! ;D

;D

[kiwiscanfly]

well here it is we are in October and still no exact date of release........... I feel another delay coming.

[Dave Homewood]

There's probably more words in this thread of 40 pages than what will be in the Goverment document. Most of it is wishful thinking...

[30sqnatc]

Oct 1, 2010 15:56:36 GMT 12 kiwiscanfly said:

.... and one of the few projects that has gone smoothly...

What If that was a smooth project I hate to see what you would classify as a bumpy one but I must agree they were a great buy.

[arclight]

Of course, sometimes people like to dream.... but that's all it is. (let's see what happens in the White Paper Review and see if I'm wrong) I will be the first to admit my mistaken beliefs if the Air Combat Force is reinstated. However, if it's not, then a few fellas on this site may be looking pretty darn silly. no offense, but to ignore the constituency is to lose their trust and support - Key will not do this. But lets just wait and see whether you are right...or if you're proven completely wrong.

HOFFY: "You have no more clarity with crystal ball gazing than anyone else my friend."

YOGI "It would not be political suicide, average joe just needs to be immersed in some good pr spin for a while.
The government only needs to be honest and say hey labour were acting irrationally, the ACF should never have been scrapped because we need it for... >insert multitude of valid reasons here< people dont care that much about having an acf and its just as easy to defend their use as it is to criticise."

mmm.. obviously two nice fellas wish very wishful thinking, eternal optimism, possibly ignorance? you be the judge.

[obiwan27]

It's ok to speculate and debate what we think/wish should come out in the Defence White Paper, that is one of the reasons for having a forum with a topic thread about the 'launch' of the Defence Review document. Perhaps when it does eventually come out we can start a separate thread to discuss its recommendations?

[nige]

Oct 1, 2010 17:54:40 GMT 12 arclight said:

HOFFY: "You have no more clarity with crystal ball gazing than anyone else my friend."

YOGI "It would not be political suicide, average joe just needs to be immersed in some good pr spin for a while.
The government only needs to be honest and say hey labour were acting irrationally, the ACF should never have been scrapped because we need it for... >insert multitude of valid reasons here< people dont care that much about having an acf and its just as easy to defend their use as it is to criticise."

mmm.. obviously two nice fellas wish very wishful thinking, eternal optimism, possibly ignorance? you be the judge.

Whilst I wouldn't expect the Defence Review to advocate re-establishing the ACF again immediately (but let's hope the Govt establishes a framework that can be expanded over time, eg first steps Macchis and rebuild the basic infrastructure), I certainly don't share your pessimism.

Let's go back to the 1990's-2001 and the situation at those times (that gave the then Govt their "justification" to disband the ACF):

1a*The Cold War was over, and the perceived threat to NZ (and/or her interests), a super-power the USSR, had imploded.

2a*Which meant, the super power rivalry was over, the winner, the US was not a threat to NZ and/or her interests (or world peace etc).

3a*Closer to home, Indonesia was transitioning away from military dictatorship.

4a*(I'll put aside Labour Party foreign policy, Helen Clark, her dividend to the Peace groups, solidarity with (Democratic) Socialist idealism - for the sake of not getting political - despite these having an influence in the ACF disbanding etc).

5a*Conflict between medium power states being unlikely.

6a*Small state and interstate conflict still occurring, thus more Western attention to peace keeping missions (and major peace enforcement eg Kosovo, could be handled by the US and EU etc).

Let's look at the situation now:

1b*USSR gone and Russia too broke to threaten EU & US (and thus us etc), but instead we have rapidly growing and emerging new super power, China, that is on an economic and technological race to catch up (and one day overtake th USA etc). Whilst China is not an overt threat to the West and NZ, it's secrecy surrounding its military expansion, it's flexing of muscles (eg current stand-off with Japan), its economic expansion in the Pacific (eg China v Taiwan aid rivalry in the Pacific etc) is ringing "some" alarm bells ...

2b* Super power rivalry has resumed as a result.

3b* Democratic Indonesia is on friendly terms with NZ and Aust etc (but ... the civilian Govt does NOT have total control of elements of the Indonesian Military TNI eg TNI control of illegal activities in Papua etc, i.e. there could be potential for military control in the future if circumstances arise be that military or due to economic or environmental catastrophy and thus population (200M) needing to be controlled etc (think Volcano, earthquake, disease outbreak etc).

4b* See 4a above - their influence is waning as that generation's power wanes (that generation which matured in the 60's/70's eg the protest generation).

5b*Conflict between medium power states very likely eg just look closer to home, in SE Asia & tensions with China and several neighbours eg South China sea, Pakistan v India, Burma, Korea, ....

6b* See 6a above, these too are still issues, and can still be used (by Govts) to "justify" reducing combat capabilities further to support boots on the ground operations ...

And don't forget Afghanistan - NZ operating with US/coalition forces again in a big way, for the first time since Vietnam...ie NZDF needs to be verse with operating with (and calling up) fast air in terms of Close air support.

To me, a prudent NZ Govt would acknowledge the state of affairs (that saw the ACF demise) is now alot different ... and not in a good way.

*In a worldwide economic crunch, in which the effects are still being played out (including continued hardships which is starting to strain some nations and their populance);

*NZ defence being so underfunded for about 20+ years during the peace dividend, it will take years to slowly grow defence expenditure (and this is all happening whilst NZDF tempo is as great as it was in the 60's eg Confrontation, Vietnam etc, (despite the NZDF currently having alot less personnel, assets and capabilities since then) hence support for these operations is a high priority meaning an ACF must take a somewhat back seat, especially whilst these 1960's assets continue to be replaced (eg next the C130H's etc)

*And that prudent NZ Govt would rethink the value and worth of air combat forces (by planning for future worse case scenarios, that could realistically happen in SE Asia, affecting NZ economic prosperity), and realise the cost to contribute to international efforts to ensure stability could be cost effectively done by an ACF element - the cost to deploy 100 or so ACF personnel and support, would be more cost effective than an Army battalion which would be mince meat in an all out shooting war - the Army is very important, in other ways (eg counter insurgency, patrolling etc) not simply by shipping them to the middle of a war zone as NZ's contribution. In fact it wouldn't be logistically possible, the Army is underfunded and equipped to operate in high intensity conflicts (or even in front line roles in Iraq or Afghanistan, against irregular forces etc).

[Hoffy]

Sept 29, 2010 16:29:22 GMT 12 arclight said:

It would be absolute political suicide to bring back the Air Combat Wing... the only way a New Zealand government would do it, is if it was lead by an American! Our manned Air Combat Force will never ever appear again. It just won't happen guys and to think it will is delluding yourself. It really is gone !

Hmm...we are using a shared common language called English here are we not? OK , I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume maybe you misread my post.
So let me try again using an even more simple written approach;

Odds of a new ACF in the next several years: "very unlikely".

Nobody seriously thinks that shortly the Defence White Paper will announce the formation of a new fast air capability for NZ.
Obviously there is a lack of political will & money for such a project just at the moment. What does the mid/longer term future hold in store? Now that's the big question that nobody can answer.

Including you my friend. Ignorance is to use words like "never ever appear again" when referring to the future.

[kiwiscanfly]

we wont have to wait long to find out....... I hope.

[Dave Homewood]

Arclight, I'm puzzled. I would like to know what you are basing your ideas on in terms of what you say the people of New Zealand think. There has never been a national referendum to poll the entire country's views on whether or not we need a more defensively capable (and offensively capable) element to our Air Force. The closest that has come to that was a series of independent polls carried out by various news agencies and TV and radio stations ten years ago when Clark announced the strike wing was to be cut, and overwhelmingly the public who took part in those polls were totally against the decision, most of the polls rating around 90% of people against Clark's rash personally-biased decision. I don't think there has ever been a more overwhelming majority in a political opinion poll in this country, not that I can think of, and it was pretty much consistent across all the groups polled.

I move in a wide variety of circles but as an ex-member of the RNZAF and as a devoted Air Force researcher and historian, the topic of the Air Force comes up a lot in conversation when I'm chatting with people. You only have to mention the Air Force and some people get straight into the topic of the Skyhawks, it is still very much to the fore of public consciousness, which is interesting. You might be very surprised at the tirades of abuse I have heard and a still hearing when people get on their high horse about Clark and her cronies and what they did. I have to admit that in the past ten years, in talking with people young, old, middle aged, rich, poor, intelligent, average or downright thick, I cannot think of a single person who has yet said to me "Oh yes, that was a great idea because we didn't need fighters. Well we'll never go to war..." (one or two on here have said that but I suspect they were just looking to start something, they can't really be that daft. It's that 1920's mentality all over again).

I am literally racking my brains and cannot think of a single person in day to day life who has said they supported Labour's decision. Even young mums and teenagers have said they can't believe what the Labour Government did.

I would suspect the only people who might not think it a good idea to have jet fighters are those 15 and under who have no memory of what the Air Force was capable of before. They are the victims of youth.

Some, particularly the elderly who sacrificed so much themselves in various wars to defend New Zealand's way of life, are extremely bitter about the whole thing. Others simply say things like "It seems very silly not to have it, in case something happens." These people realise the jet fighter-bombers were there as an insurance policy for their own personal safety.

They obviously realise too that the cost in taxes is not much compared with the cost of what might happen if the need for the jets arises suddenly and they're not there. These everyday people are the types who religiously pay out for their house insurance, car insurance, life insurance, contents insurance, etc, and wonder why the Goernment has decided to reneg on a vital insurance that, if called into question, would possible make all the other policies worthless.

Most people are also savvy enough to realise that the actual cost of the strike force was a pittance compared with what other countries spend, and when you compare it to other areas the various Government departments waste the taxes on, the blood boils.

A side affect of the strike wing being Clark'd Up is that the pride the nation once had in the RNZAF has, I feel, been eroded as a whole. New Zealanders were once very proud of their Air Force, staunchly proud. After Clark committed her deadly sins and probably also as a result of the Skyhawk sale debacle, some people have treated the RNZAF as a joke - we've all heard the smirked question "Do we still have an Air Force?" asked when you mention the RNZAF. Many people seem to have forgotten how good the other elements still are. They forget that if lost in the bush it is likely an Iroquois that will save them; or if lost at sea you're asured it's an Orion that rescues them. If a prisoner escapes or a child goes missing, the RNZAF are more than often there, searching. They get the least mention in the follow up articles about the case, yet often played the vitral part of the story.

I would like to see the strong public image of confidence restored that kiwis once had, rather than news stories being all negative or negating. Perhaps the events of the past year where a string of tragedies has brought the the risks to Air Force and the NZDF back into the public gaze has reminded some that these men and women are constantly there, keeping watch over us, at their risk, not ours.

Ten years has passed but I think the outrage of the disbandment is still there, underlying, seathing away - especially as people in this country are acutely aware now more than they had been for decades of national security threats and risks to their safety thanks to all the recent developments around the world, and I think the people of this country have the brains to realise we are lacking a vital part of our national security network, a part that we used to have and admire and be extremely proud of because it constantly showed others that it was one of the best in the world at what it did.

I would seriously like you to please present me with evidence that the overwhelming majority of people of New Zealand do not want their Air Force to be restored to its former level of strength and capability it once had.

You stated, "to ignore the constituency is to lose their trust and support - Key will not do this." It is my opinion that the people of New Zealand were totally ignored when Clark dictated that the F-16's should not be purchased and she scuppered the deal of the century. And we were collectively ignored again when she later decreed the strike wing would disband. The polls at the time showed that less than 10% of people agreed with her decision. Therefore going by your statement the only thing John Key can and should do is fork out and buy some new fighter jets.

The argument keeps arising that kiwis want health care and education spending over defence spending. Wrong. Kiwis want health care and education AND they want decent defence. If the majority of NZ'ers didn't want the money wasted on defence they would have marched a hikoi from Kaitaia to Bluff telling the politicians that the money needs to be spent elsewhere and the NZDF be canned. They haven't.

The people of NZ won't rally against defence spending because they know that they have a very good professional defence force who in rough times will be there to help them, just like their police, ambulance crews, firemen, etc. Whether it's an earthquake, flooding, armed offenders alert, ferry or prison strike, or whatever arises that is out of the ordinary and affects everyday kiwis, when called on to assist - the NZDF is there. New Zealanders know that anything can happen, and that goes for war as well as natural disaster or political turmoil. Why would any kiwi decide they do not want their trained professionals of the NZDF to have the equipment needed to meet challenges of the unforeseen? That is plain ludicrous. Preparedness is a key in everything in life, and in modern society a well equipped and prepared Air Force is essential and should be a basic right of freedom. Right now we have allowed the Air Force to be neglected which makes the nation unprepared for disaster and it has gone on for far too long. Things must change.

[luke6745]

Oct 1, 2010 23:30:40 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

I would suspect the only people who might not think it a good idea to have jet fighters are those 15 and under who have no memory of what the Air Force was capable of before. They are the victims of youth.

Being a 15 year old, I have to disagree with you. Most people of my age agree that having an ACF is a good idea. The topic came up in a class discussion once and from what I recall, only one or two people thought it was a bad idea. I do not know if students in public schools have the same opinions as I go to Scots College (which is a private school with naturally right-leaning opinions). But I have also met very few people in public schools, family and the general public who think we shouldn't have an ACF (I was even approached selling raffle tickets for ATC at a supermarket by a lady was very strongly against what the previous Labour government had done).

[arclight]

Present you with evidence Mr. Homewood? I can present you with rational thinking based upon simple logic...(please refer to the several other posts that I've made which clearly illustrate my view, maybe that might help to answer some of your questions). My assessment of this site is positive however, of course, it hardly academic based on what I have read - but that's not why I'm here. The views presented here seem to be mainly the voices of military enthusiasts, ignorant flag-wavers, and others who have a great passion for nostalgia... and for possible remilitarisation). However, in my humble view, sometimes it's important to be realistic about things, and this approach I believe will be mirrored in the upcoming Defense White Paper. I have not long been with this site, and I am not strongly bias (in being either ex-air force, or ex-military myself - unlike other people... - I am also not a supporter of Labour or the Greens - who directed the scrapping of the ACF), however, some of my close family members and friends have had long careers in the air force and held significant ranks. So based on these personal connections, as well as numerous conversations on a weekly basis with defense historians / experts / analysts (particularly : Dr. Vincent Orange, Dr. Chris Connolly, Dr. Gareth Pritchard, and Dr. Chris Galavan and well as studying about NZ defense for a number of years myself, I feel that I am reasonably well-informed and comparitively up-to-date with the recent debate, unlike other semi-isolated, obscure ex-military gentlemen who may view themselves as "historians". It would be considered a cardinal sin by most of his peers if a historian wrote simply out of sentimentalism, which all would see as having almost no place in the writing of true history.

I apologize to those of you who still harbour dreams and fantasies of NZ rebuilding and re-equipping the manned Air Combat Force. It is obvious to some, but not to all... that it would be almost impossible for even a National government who have just emerged battered from a recent world economic crisis, and in its first term, and with the importance of NZ's 'peaceful' image....to justify attack jets. Fiscal restraits and real priorities outweigh old militarists arguments any day. I would be very interested (as Mr Homewood may also be) to see just how many New Zealand people would vote for extra funding of an expanded air-force rather than spending it on the pressured health system (baring in mind that a thing called the 'baby-boom' happened... and the costs of high-tech medical machines greatly every single year) Or that because now more than ever, the development of a highly-competitive globalised world system, means that we are now being confronted by highly educated individuals from developing countries (India, China, most of Asia, E. Europe, South America etc) who we may be hard-pressed to stay ahead of... especially if we buy expensive, obsolete jets at the expense of funding our nations schools and universities...

mmm. not sure if this counts as evidence, but perhaps it counts are good judgement? I don't know, but I am sure that some of you out there will understand (especially if you have read every single post on this Defense Review thread - as I've enjoyed doing) that is would truely be stupidity for any successful government to destroy themselves (and the possibility of a second term) not to mention NZ's international credibility by wasting terrible amounts of money on a quite controversial element of our defense force.

Maybe many of our Australian friends on this website may cringe after reading this and want to put in their 2 cents, and of course many of you other guys (especially the old-timers who live in a different reality all-together) may be upset too. I don't mean to upset you guys, just to help you "get over" the loss. (it happened a decade ago!)

Well, pplease direct your criticisms to me, and feel free to decreas my Karma - obviously I am just making all of this up... you be the judge.

[arclight]

"The people of NZ won't rally against defence spending because they know that they have a very good professional defence force who in rough times will be there to help them, just like their police, ambulance crews, firemen, etc. Whether it's an earthquake, flooding, armed offenders alert, ferry or prison strike, or whatever arises that is out of the ordinary and affects everyday kiwis, when called on to assist - the NZDF is there. New Zealanders know that anything can happen, and that goes for war as well as natural disaster or political turmoil. Why would any kiwi decide they do not want their trained professionals of the NZDF to have the equipment needed to meet challenges of the unforeseen? That is plain ludicrous. Preparedness is a key in everything in life, and in modern society a well equipped and prepared Air Force is essential and should be a basic right of freedom. Right now we have allowed the Air Force to be neglected which makes the nation unprepared for disaster and it has gone on for far too long. Things must change. "

And finally, as most of you will be clever enough to work out... this was not a debate primarily about general Defense Spending. It was directed at the silliness of people who think that the government is going to be willing to buy-up second-hand manned fighters such as F-16s or F-18s...

I support defense spending as I would imagine a large portion of New Zealand does, however, it must be done wisely AND it must increase with the times, more money needs to go into supported and gradually expanding the NZDF - as also illustrated in the academic lecture cited by "Kiwiscanfly" on page 37. (you should really read it guys, it's quite good and deals with the new reality, as opposed to Cold War geopolitics -- I don't agree with every single point, however, at least the guy isn't basing his views on over-sentimentalism and a false reality).

[arclight]

feel free to make some comments justifying the re-instatement of the ACF, or, if you believe that John Key is going to raise our defense spending to 2% - then argue your point. And for those of you who just want to defend the Air Force manned Combat Jets as being "essential and should be a basic right of freedom" (lol) then be my guest, show us just how clever and how rational you really are... (yes, I'm talking to you Mr Homewood). Or if you are interested in chatting to me or getting into contact with any of my Masters supervisors and learning a bit more about NZ Military history & our air force, then I can introduce you - although you'd have to be in the Christchurch area (University of Canterbury).

I sure am looking forward to your intelligent responses which justify expensive fast jets (but please remember, I have already read this whole 40 page thread a few times and if you are only going to recycle something from a previous post...then that would be silly). Be original, be brave, and justify yourself, this is a fun debate about the NZ Defense White Paper!

Good Luck fullas .

[arclight]

HINT: Make sure you read the 12 other posts that I've composed (often in response to comments made by others), or you may find yourself barking up the wrong tree. I love the NZ Air force & Military History as much as you --- maybe more... afterall, that's what I'm doing my Masters on, and when I get my doctorate I plan to make a career out of teaching it.

[nige]

arclight - curious to know more about your study (eg is it military history or political history etc - can you expand?

Also you always seem to refer to the present political and financial climate regularly (which I acknowledge is a major driver in determining Govt will or planning - it always has been etc) as why the Govt won't (or would be "foolish" to) "restore the ACF" but I don't think you've linked ACF with foreign policy objectives.

Currently the NZDF is being used for Govt foreign policy objectives and international standing etc. Here's a question for you since you are studying (in the area?), what further foreign policy objectives & advantages could be secured by a Govt having an ACF?

[oldnavy]

I really have nothing educated to add the this very serious debate. Sometimes I see people talking down to me and others and I absolutely love their absolutes... nearly as much as I loathe the number of people over your side who have absolutely given up.

Here is something truer than a true thing, and I don't need a masters degree to say it. If a decision can be made to ditch a capability, then a decision can be made to get a new one, or even get an old one back.

Somewhere earlier in this thread it has already been established that the amount of comms/bandwidth needed to support largely unmanoeuvrable surveillance UAVs is beyond the NZDF for decades...centuries if you consider the cost disadvantages versus the cheaper manned options, so intimating combat UAVs may be on a future agenda is probably a uni lecture room view based on much thought and little practicality.

Back in the real world, what is the forum view on Indonesia getting 180 Su27s and replacing their Hawks with F16s? Hide behind Australia if you must, but in my view, if NZ is serious about being on the world stage, they had better start paying their way again. Allies won't help if you don't help yourselves, and thinking they will go on propping you up is not very sensible if you want to stay a country. I say this because I read our constitution preamble the other day. Take it from me, you are still a part of it and most welcome to come under my umbrella...

The converse is also true. If NZ wants to fade into irrelevance as a SW Pacific micro economy, keep doing what you are doing. Then you can populate the British Army Rugby team with your finest, just like Fiji does today...

NB: Fiji does peace keeping as well. Peace keepers are great at peace keeping and hopeless at soldiering. Soldiers can peace keep or be soldiers. Straight forward really. The current direction of travel for the NZDF is irrelevance. Political reality or not in the current circumstances, let's hope your white paper does rattle some cages and leaves the door open to turn things around at some point.