Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[obiwan27]

In response to arclight I would say that it's fair enough to say that views in favour of renewal of an Air Combat Force have varied from one end of the spectrum to the other. One end would be the fantasy end and the other end would be the practical, realistic end. If you want to get the full view on the disbanding of the ACF then I hope you have done your research properly and not just focussed on this thread alone.
As one person who I think inhabits the latter end of the spectrum I think the only thing you could hope for was a reactivation of the Maachis as a step towards the RNZAF reinstating the fast jet capability that it and the other branches of our Defence Force sorely miss.
The Skyhawks were at the end of their lifespan and the replacement of them with the F16s was a sensible deal, particularly when you consider how much the NZ dollar has appreciated against the US dollar over the past 10 years. It was an opportunity lost and also a capability in trained personnel and infrastructure that was needlessly flushed down the toilet by the Clark government that then went about a series of misguided and inappropriate purchases in favour of the Army and Navy, particularly the 'new' HMNZS Canterbury (not suited or properly equipped for the role) and the 105 LAVs.
Not only was Clark wrong in her view of a benign strategic environment she also maintained this outlook despite world events in 2001 and beyond.
You seem to have the same viewpoint as my friend (Claiming a degree on Political Science as evidence of his 'expertise' in discussing this issue) who lives and works in South Korea, a fortress mentality that views the ACF as primarily an 'attack' force. It really is more than just this, it served as a vital part of a credible defence force that was able to exercise regularly with our Army and Navy (as well as the Aussie Navy) to represent both a threat to practice against as well as an asset to practice with. It also was a capability that was able to be deployed on occasion in exercises with our allies in the Asia-pacific region, along with Army and Navy assets. It also served as a deterrent capability for those fishing vessels fishing within our waters as ably demonstrated by the Skyhawks in the Korean squid boat incident of 1976. As I said, this capability is sorely missed.
The thing is that NZ has never been able to fully provide for its defence needs on its own, it has always worked in cooperation with its allies and our ACF fulfilled a niche role in this regard.
Being seen as a peaceful nation doesn't preclude having a properly equipped and balanced defence force, including some form of air combat/strike capability.
Personally I don't think that the government would be considering buying up secondhand F16s or F18s but as I mentioned above reinstatement of the Maachis as a step towards a long term plan of reinstating some form of fast jet capability is about the only outcome one could hope for, although that would also present a number of prickly issues. Raising Defence spending to 2%? I don't think so.
The defence white paper needs to have a plan in place that addresses the country's local and regional defence requirements for the next 25 years or so. If you know your NZ history arclight, then you will know that NZ has been caught out defence wise (particularly its Air Force) in the past. We are supposed to know our history and learn from it. The Clark government and too many complacent NZers don't and haven't.

[corsair67]

Okay, okay - I admit I went a bit over the top with my RNZAF wish list; but as I said "Think Big"!

I'm prepared to let everything else on the list go; but only so long as I can keep the 20 B-1Bs! ;D

[adzze]

If bandwidth is a problem for UAVs, what about purchasing the launch of a government-owned comms satellite? In the spirit of thinking outside the square...

I've looked at the cost of launching a satellite, an average launch over the last 10 years cost US$51m... the satellite maybe another US$50m depending on requirements. Probably not too much in the context of a small fleet of UAVs, and the satellite could be tasked for other comms requirements (NZ govt multi-agency, and/or its neighbours) to extract the maximum value from it.

[yogi]

Oct 2, 2010 1:44:41 GMT 12 arclight said:

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, we have justified our opinions many times if you care to look through some other threads you will find them. They are plentiful.

"Present you with evidence Mr. Homewood? I can present you with rational thinking based upon simple logic"

Perhaps arclight, next time you can do it without attempting to belittle the intelligence and capabilities of other forum members.

It is obvious to me that an ACF is required as a part of a fully functional, combat capable defence force, how is having an army totalling about 7000 people with the support of 100 lavs with NO native air cover logical or rational?
The point of having an army is to be able to actually fight if required, as it stands at the moment we would be exposing our troops to unnecessary harm if we were to be engaged in an actual shooting war.

Basically what I am trying to say is if we have to go it alone, we are totally f***** I think thats a pretty good justification for spending a few million dollars.

One does not need a masters or to be perpetually surrounded by intellectual types to see this but that is just my ignorant commoners view.

Why dont you justify to me why it is necessary to have an expensive army which wont be used in an expeditionary capacity because it is vulnerable with no dedicated air cover, and if we were attacked would likely sustain huge losses for the same reason.
Following that logic theres no point having an army at all wouldnt you say?

Or am I just being pedantic?

[Dave Homewood]

Oct 2, 2010 0:32:07 GMT 12 luke6745 said:

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.

That is good news Luke. Thanks for the correction. Perhaps those under ten then are those unaware of the importance of the ACW.

[Dave Homewood]

Oct 2, 2010 1:14:47 GMT 12 arclight said:

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"

I find your remarks towards me as downright insulting. I have never professed to being an expert in modern military thinking, and have largely tried to keep my actual views out of this debate because I consider them largely irrelevant. I have made the odd comment, largely in jest to keep the debate light hearted and take the heat out of the debate, and added a few random thoughts, but frankly I have not tried to give my view of what should be bought, what should be spent, where the money should come form, etc.

You scoff pompously that I am a "semi-isolated, obscure ex-military gentlemen who may view themselves as "historians"."

Semi-isolated? Cambridge is the centre of the North Island and the hub of society. That being as it may, no-one is isolated when they have the internet
Obscure? I wish, I don't post under a pseudonym like you do, and so I have become well known in aviation circles because of the work I have done with trying to preserve and promote aviation history and current affairs. I get recognised all the time these days. You may never heard of me but perhaps you live in obscure semi-isolation?
Ex-military? That I proudly admit
Gentleman? Shit no, I'm not rich enough for that.
View myself as a historian? I have to admit that I was surprised when the newspapers began referring to me as a historian, but given that I make the effort to record history, both in written form and on film, and that I studied history at university, and that I run a website devoted to recording history, and a forum that records and promotes history, and I have contributed articles to magazines that are recording history, and that I ran a magazine myself recording history for nine years, and my name is credited in several books for contributing historical facts to the text, I guess I have possibly earned the right to view myself as a historian. The term is not only applicable to those who spend their lives in a well paid university job.

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.

Did you think my post above was an attempt by me to write a historical piece? Hmm. No, I wasn't. I was posing the question to you of what evidence do you base your statements on. I wanted to see where you are getting your evidence from that no-one in the NZ public cares nor wants a return to proper defence, because it varies hugely from the raft of discussion I have heard from a wide range of people. You replied with a load of useless blather, threw in some insults and a few names dropped to make you look smart, and avoided answering the question. Therefore I deduce that you must be a politician.

Oh, and, if you write history without having any sentimental feeling attached to the subject matter, it will be cold, boring and dull. That must be how the academics do it, I guess.

[corokid66]

Oct 2, 2010 1:55:14 GMT 12 arclight said:

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.

Make sure you read my posts as well arclight - quid pro quo. And read everyone elses as well. Also lighten up a little and have a fun. WOW is a place for ideas, opinions and at time rants about the RNZAF. Also a place for a bit of irony and humour too. You don't need to play the I'm so right and intellectually superior ángle with us. You might be suprised on the knowledge and background of people here. Some may even already have advanced academic experience beyond being a Masters student and know all sorts of expert people. Not that that matters one jot. Hell even I have a masters degree and a law degree I am a complete dimwit. I only mention that because I want to illustrate that you are probably not as unique and especially qualified as you may think and that it is highly likely that you too are a complete dimwit as well. That aside, it does not make me any more or less intellectual than anyone else or my opinions anymore or less valid. ;D

[paulwhite]

You are a dickhead arclight! Just because you might know people who might be experts doesn't mean to say that they are going to right about everything, we know things too. We need Jets to protect against terrorists and to help our friends whenever there is wars. I don't think that you are from New Zealand because you seem to hate everything about our defence force and trying to make us weaker. Remember what happened at Pearl Harbor when the Japs attacked secretly that could happen to us so we should be ready. It's people like you who make us look silly. You might be a clever guy in somethings but sometimes someone can be wrong. I think maybe we will get the Air Macchis back because they weren't sold and maybe we can buy more plane from the USA because they don't need the old ones anyway. the Raptor and F35s are king of the sky nowadays. I think you should just f**koff if you want to abandon our friends and allies when we have made promises.

MODERATED

[Dave Homewood]

paulwhite - don't use the type of language that was in your last sentence which I deleted. It's not that kind of forum. Thanks.

Let's just all calm down, breathe a bit and realise none of this really matters as it's well out of our hands now.

[obiwan27]

Well said Dave. It's ok to be passionate about a topic but we need to keep perspective and realise that it's the pollys who make the decisions. That's why I suggested an alternative thread for further discussion once the White Paper is released. It is however a crying shame that this debate did not happen in the corridors of power back in 1999-2001 or so. Again that's our Pollys who failed the nation imho.
Finally I'd just like to say that I do enjoy reading and commenting on various topics on this forum, something that I find interesting and intellectually stimulating. As many forum members know I am presently a uni student full-time here in Christchurch but that doesn't make my opinion any more or any less relevant than any other forum members, most of whom are much better qualified to comment on aviation matters than I am. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share in these discussions and I believe the most important thing in doing so is that we treat each other with respect.
Cheers and beers, Obi.

[paulwhite]

What do you mean?? I'm just calling it as I see it and some guys think that they're more clever than the rest of us because they study at universities wasting my taxpayer money for high IQs and timewasting. I learned everything I need to know in the school of life and I don't want to have to hear traitors talking about getting rid of our defence force and us becoming a country of ***** like arclight. He obviously is one of them because he doesn't respect others peoples intelligence and having pHDs doesn't matter when you are thinking about life. The government will be daft to forget protecting the coastlines and the battalions without Helicopters or Jets. I really don't understand why they stopped our Skyhawks flying they were still good enough for action and for fighting the terrorists everywhere. Anytime we could be attacked nd we need them. thats all I have to say about this now but I hope that people can see what I am saying and its important for the generations in the future as well. Those robot airplanes that are flying without a pilots is just stupid because humans have quicker reactions in piloting and also maybe the robot planes will malfunction anyway !! the world thinking today is really dangerous so we need the capabilitys like the Australians to fight in wars against al-keida or else we're history. Try arguing against that point acrlight how can you stop 911 in New Zealand if we don't have the jets?? dumbass.

[phil]

paulwhite, perhaps you could elaborate on how the skyhawks could have stopped a 9/11 style attack in NZ?

The USAF didn't manage it with all their resources, so I'd be interested to know how you think we might have responded to a similar style of attack here?

[mumbles]

Oct 2, 2010 21:06:24 GMT 12 paulwhite said:

What do you mean?? I'm just calling it as I see it and some guys think that they're more clever than the rest of us because they study at universities wasting my taxpayer money for high IQs and timewasting.

I called you on it. Play the ball, not the man, and keep the homophobic BS to yourself. The fact that you can't seem to argue a point with someone without calling their sexual orientation into question in an insulting way (something which has always struck me as a bit insecure by the way) doesn't exactly speak volumes for your own IQ, and seriously devalues whatever points you are trying to make.

Before you ask, I don't particularly agree with Arclights style and argument either, and have never attended a university for what its worth.

[paulwhite]

I was asking arclight the question I don't need your opionion If you are his friend phil then you should let him fight his own battles he said he's a big clever Master student and knows more than us so I think he's full of shit. And the 911 attacks could happen here I'm not saying that we could have taken them down better than the yanks what I'm saying is that after the attacks against the US we could have put all of our air assets on standby to protect against those types of suicide attacks on our home soil. The Anzacs must be rolling in their graves with people like you guys seeling off our military power. They fought and died for our country and we owe it to their memory to kept it the way it is and build a stronger new airforce to help make the world safe for people. I guess some kiwis too have forgotten that sacrefice and thats why our planes are getting sold and no more attack capability. don't you understand that you need those jets to fully protect and train the navy and the army! when will fight wars alongside the Australians we won't know what to do because our guys aren't prepared for actual wars. In the past in Vietnam and other wars we could use the fighters to help beat the communists and they knew that we weren't weak but now Helen Clarke and those clever military experts are getting rid of everything!!! don't you get it?

[phil]

I'm no friend of arclight, far from it with his rather high and mighty tone, but you asked

how can you stop 911 in New Zealand if we don't have the jets?

Now I simply asked you how could we have stopped them if we did have jets?

Me asking you that has nothing to do with arclight, I'm interested to hear your ideas on the subject.

[Dave Homewood]

Moderator's Announcement

I have just banned the accounts of 'arclight' and 'paulwhite' because the ISP addresses were exactly the same - these two obnoxious priocks were the same person.

I AM GETTING SICK OF THIS BULLSHIT.

We are getting new members pop up specifically to make trouble, and when called out they are making duplicate identities and arguing with themselves to keep the trouble going. It is totally sick and totally unwelcome. We have had the same thing with the recent case of multiple accounts started by one man - smurf/SirBean/Smithy70

It is not on and we will not have it. This thread is a particular magnet for the nutters to congregate at, and I am very tempted to close it from further posts unless things settle down. I think everything that could have been said and debated has been done so tenfold already, so I wouldn't give a hoot if the thread is closed. I have enough to deal with already without dealing with immature arseholes posting flame posts and firing the flames themselves with another username.

[corokid66]

All this was started by Arclight and now are now we are staring to squabble amongst ourselfves.

Paul - steady on mate - just dont ket the passion for what you believe get out of hand. Phil and Mumbles are very sensible people of good standing on this forum.

Arclight being the clever clogs that he no doubt is made some forthright statements and invited us to critique them. Some have done an excellent job in doing this.

I have taken the liberty to to this also as follows:

Arclight wrote:
"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."

No it did not maintain a large number of capabilities. All that NZ had was primarily what it has now in comparitive terms for the large part of that period. Outside of the dis-establishing of the ACF, an experiential divergence that will fail us down the track in my view, it has outwardly maintained an orthodox force. It was a frigate navy of only 4 vessels plus a small number of light corvettes which had a minesweep/OPV type role, a couple of survey vessels and a dozen or so small HMDL's for fisheries. The major difference was the gradual decline of the Divisional structure of the Army down to a Brigade structure and the loss of a light tank squadron.

Arclight wrote:
"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."

Other than the fast air every other modern liberal democratic country with the exception of Ireland - who are in a completely different set of geopolitical and geo-strategic circumstances have modest amounts of all of the above and for very good national and regional security reasons.

Arclight wrote:
"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).

No. It is absolutely insane to take the other direction and have no force available. What you fail to see is that 1. China is only one of many forseeable threats - go do your homework because I am again not spelling them out here for you. 2. NZ is a part of a wider interdependent regional security umbrella, whether ivory tower academics or politicians like it or not, in that its place and primacy as an independent tactical entity has fundamental repurcussions on the region in the strategic sense.

Arclight wrote:
" 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."

On the other hand NZ is essentially a resource rich nation of continental proportions if you move away from a terrafirma centric standpouint. Fourth largest EEZ, a resource to capita ratio only second to the Saudi's, ahead of Norway and a heck of a lot more diverse in resource stocks than both. It also possesses the longest air/sea trade routes of any nation which on one hand makes direct invasion remote but on the flipside makes us exceedingly vunerable in terms of the stability of those trade routes.

Arclight wrote:
"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."

Everybody is well aware that through Australia being 5 times the size of New Zealand and a requirement to undertake a larger strategic footprint means that there sare some very expensive defence assets we could not afford such as Wedgetail, Collins Class subs, Tiger ARH, M1A1 MTB's, JORN, 100 JSF, Hobart air warfare destroyers and large amphibious support ships like the Canberra class. There is no doubt that Austalia has taken a great leap forward but New Zealand has taken a great leap back in capability. Whether Australia has done the right things is a moot point, however in my humble opinion we have been wrong.

However it is should be realised that NZ has been an underperformer in ts economic and political management over the last 40 years. That the capability to do much better in that area can be improved. Whether or not all those expensive items bought by the Australians will be used in a convential war or not is neither here nor there in the context of NZ or the NZDF. However though you may rule out use in a "conventional war" it does not mean that there are a number of capabilities that are required in a UNSC Chapter VII Peace Enforcement mission. Close air support, an anti-ship capability, strategic and tactical airlift are amongst a number of things that are required as must haves for any military taskforce operating at Chp VII.

It is all very well to get your defence critique chops from mthe Political History Department of Canterbury University but, I know that their expertise does not spread to military planning at a taskforce level.

Arclight wrote:
"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’, "

That claim can be and is made by a number of nations - big deal.

"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 "

FFS... oh you have that obsession with what the USA is up to. Everytime I read something about NZDF from a lefty perspective they all digress into irrelevancies about how terrible the Yanks are. NZ does indeed follow the UN mandates - wouldn't it be nice to have a Defence Force that is properly equiped to operate as an independent unit within an interdependent force structure at UNSC Chp VII?

Arclight wrote:
"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."

I am happy it made you feel that way.

Arclight wrote:
"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."
Goodness me - mythology dressed up as facts. It was not an economic issue it was an ideological issue. $150m per year to maintain a ACF of F-16's and Macchi's which in the scheme of government spending is a pittance. The ever increasing and challenging globalised world tells me that that is the precise reason while they were necessary and not the converse. For a Masters student who purports to have logic - I am very underwhelmed by your arguments. The Quigley report in 2000 actually reported back that 14-16 F-16's were on balance affordable and had merit. The US even approach us under new terms to see if we were willing to accept a reduced fleet when they saw the deal looking like a deliberate political scalp.

Arclight wrote:
"This is pretty much why NZ is not investing in large-scale military programmes unless they are completely necessary."

Interestingly enough, in the 70 or so "wars" or "police actions" since the end of WW2 more was learnt the hard way from hindsight than foresight. What was seemingly appropriate before the action was deemed inappropriate following that action. I think you will find that next decade the C-130 replacement and the P-3 replacement will be both necessary and comparitively large scale and New Zealand will be investing in this heavily.

Arclight wrote:
"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."

Currently it is not really all that possible for us to do another Timor - a UNSC Chp VII Peace Enforcement mission in our own backyard with any sembalance as being an entity from an "independent" nation. Oh thats alright you would say - the Aussies can do all the difficult and high tech work with a required air-maritime screen, we will provide our narrow little land centric niche. The point is the Aussies are in there words stretched - they only have enough for there own needs. It is not like when they bought the Shornets and the JSF they thought well we need 18 shornets and 80 F-35's Prime Minister but we will have to get another 6 Shornets and 20 F-35's to cover for the Kiwi's.

Arclight wrote:
"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."

Whatever the white paper delivers is all fine and dandy at the end of the day. However I wouild like to point out that it will enter into the realm of suspended disbelief if it does not at least discuss the possesion of a minmum credible capability to protect ground and maritime elements and to be honest other than an additional frigate and a dozen or so second tier combat capable sircraft (Not bloody F-22's and Eurofighters et al) that can condict basic self protection orientated roles such as CAS and A/Shp we are pretty much their. I am tired of folk who think that this is somehow irrelevant to the conduct of normal military operations even at a non all out warfare.

[arclight2]

I'm not sure who or what happened but for some reason my original account was not accessible. I am not sure who you guys think you are ... some sort of lynch-mob possibly? If someone holds the different position from you, you certainly don't launch personal attacks on them or hurl absuive insults in order to bully them.

I was probably the first and the last actual military academic that will visit this site and even though I did not share your same optimism for manned air power, I did offer an informed incite. I am now quite shocked and appalled with how sites like this operate and I do not wish to continue to engage in this sort of debate - if that's what you call it.

Good luck with your self-appointed resident academic genius Mr Homewood gentlemen. I'm sure that you will enjoy each others high intellect.

And Paul, I hope that you can offer more to the group than I can...even though you are obviously a head-case with some sort of serious psychosis.

Cheers Fullas
arclight signing off.

[Hoffy]

Thank God for that. Good bye...I have a feeling that you might struggle to stay away though.
Quite amusing really.
Was Arclight in Oz? Makes me ashamed if he was.

So back to the original topic;
NZ Defence White Paper.

I gather this was supposed to be released by end Sept. according to Wayne Mapp, but nothing just yet.

I'll stick my neck out here and suggest that there will be a moderate increase in the NZ defence budget...

[Dave Homewood]

Thanks arclight/paulwhite/arclight2/Hame for showing us what valuable input a highly educted military academic can offer the country. Err... not a lot.

Your third account has also been terminated in case you decided to come back.

Interesting how you are accusing your own alter-ego of a serious psychosis, you should get that checked out.