Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[Dave Homewood]

Ken you do the RNZAF no service by calling it a Government airline. The maritime patrol, SAR, tactical air transport, battlefield support and all the other capabilities still maintained have nothing to do with airline work.

[obiwan27]

Dave, on reflection I guess it was a rather unfair statement when you take into account the very important work done by the Maritime, Rotary, and Transport Wings respectively. However I stand by my statement that the RNZAF is a shadow of its former self due to the shoestring budget approach by respective governments over the past 40 years albeit in response to various world economic crises affecting New Zealand during this time. I have no doubt that the personnel perform to a very high standard with the resources available to them.

[caromeg]

Ken you do the RNZAF no service by calling it a Government airline. The maritime patrol, SAR, tactical air transport, battlefield support and all the other capabilities still maintained have nothing to do with airline work.

I think the real issue here is the lack of war-fighting focus.
The overwhelming majority of of the RNZAF mission is logistically based A critical part of any military output. (tactics for beginners - logistics for winners). Those other bits are acknowledged but are more constabulary based. What is required is a robust analysis of Air power for TODAY and tomorrow. In many many years in working with the RNZAF they are typically superb operators and very professional. the army in particular could learn a huge amount of them as to how to do operations properly.
How ever, schooled in the Profession at Arms? I'm afraid not. They are too busy flying (really well) and fixing Airplanes.
The Air power development center is a good move but I wonder how serious people take it?

[flyinkiwi]

With 29 days to go before the National Governments Defence White Paper is made public, here is an article speculating on what might be within.

[mumbles]

Feb 26, 2010 20:23:47 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

My theory Steve is that at Ohakea they might get along perhaps 10,000 people if they're lucky at a fairly out of the way base where the weather is incredibly fickle and as has often happened the fying might be cancelled.

Correspondence on this particular thread drift may be closed, but I think you are being a tad prejudicial there Dave. I can only recall ONE of the many Ohakea open days I have attended (starting in the 1980's) where weather prevented flying (2006 for the record).

[nige]

Mar 2, 2010 10:55:41 GMT 12 flyinkiwi said:

With 29 days to go before the National Governments Defence White Paper is made public, here is an article speculating on what might be within.

Except the author of that article is the chappy that once upon a time used to write "authoritively" for The Listener specialising in bagging the NZDF (... and SIS .... and the USA ... in fact anyone supporting Western collective security).

He also worked for the Green Party (y'know the only NZ political party that continuosly bags the NZDF ... SAS ... SIS ... USA ...in fact, funnily enough, again anyone supporting Western collective security)!

You may remember the author wrote those articles in the Listener some 10 years ago bagging the F16 lease (and Project Sirius) and called them "pop guns", thus tactfully setting public opinion of the minds of the liberal chardonay masses against the F16 deal as being a waste of money, whereas Defence knew the F16 deal was good because it was relatively super cheap and NZ could upgrade the avionics/sensors/weapons to various levels it felt comfortable with at later dates if the Govt felt there were a need (and in other articles he also knocked the P3 upgrades/Frigates etc). So in other words, Defence weren't being greedy and asking for top-shelf fitout, merely a level just better than the A4's but with capacity to future-proof/upgrade in case the world happenned to go pear shaped one day...

What does ruffled up Gordon have to say this time around in his latest article? Looks like the same old crap again that he repeats in each article he writes, which is in essence:

1. NZ ought to be "independant" and steer well away from the "bad guys" (that's the USA and Australia and the UK etc). In other words withdraw from the western collective security model.

2. Which means NZ won't be needing to spend zillions of dollars on "useless" fighter-bombers, Frigates, guns, etc. Instead spend the money on a coast guard, patrol ships with MG's, peacekeeping etc.

3. Oh and again to sucker in the chardonay masses, sublimely undermine the NZDF and MoD heirachy by claiming they are incompetent when it comes to pricing up contracts to purchase and upgrade equipment.

Example: he states the MoD can't even forcast properly acquisition projects nor the scale of them eg ANZAC Frigate self defence upgrades. BUT we know the problem there isn't so much the NZDF/MoD, the problem is political interference as to what is acceptable to the Govt of the day and thus how much is to be allocated. The RNZN ANZAC Frigate self defence upgrade is a good example - depending on what level of capabilities are upgraded, the cost will change accordingly. If the highest cost happened to be the Navy's preferred option, to be compatible with the recent RAN ANZAC upgrades BUT the Govt thinks Harpoon missiles are "too aggressive", then the Govt will tell the Navy via the MoD to scale it back etc. So how can NZDF/MoD exactly forcast at this stage of the ANZAC upgrade project when it doesn't know where the pollies will draw the line?

In relation to the LTDP being underfunded that is not the MoD's fault, that is the (previous) Govt's fault. NZDF/MoD clearly articluated in the LTDP what projects were to be prioritised but the (previous) Govt, which "approved" what items the LTDP were to implement over a 10 year period 2002-2012, IMO did not allocate enough money to see all/most of the projects properly funded. (And I also do hope that wasn't intended as a poison challice to the incoming Govt, which as a result is, if the new Govt wishes to fully fund those LTDP projects then it won't be able to find the money for other tickets, such as restoration of the air combat sqn's and so forth.

Ladies and gentlemen, the article is merely another attempt to spread disinformation on Defence in general, the new Govt direction for defence etc, in a subtle manner. I would suggest that people here, much better informed on defence, read the article and think about these subtle issues. Then join up his forum and critique his articles (but don't get rude or personal etc), assuming of course he doesn't censor his poster's comments (like the Sunday Star Times does)! Mind you some of the comments there from other posters are just plain weird!

An example of his disinformation campaign against the new Govt is the Iraq War. He matter of factly states NZ (National) would have "almost certainly have been militarily involved in Iraq". Really? How can anyone rewrite fabled history and claim that? At the time (2003) there is absolutely no way any Govt (be that his hypothetical National Govt in power, or Labour) would have committed the Army - they were worn out from the Timor deployment and needed a couple of years to retrain (and upskill on the incoming LAV's) - this was widely reported in the NZ media at that time.

Maybe then the SAS could have been deployed? Well how do we know that Helen didn't deploy some of them anyway, if even at a liaison level? I wonder if the main SAS sqn were also re-building after their Afghan deployments and thus weren't available for Iraq anyway?

By 2003 the A4's were gone, so the RNZAF wouldn't been on the firing line.

So that leaves a possible National Govt deploying perhaps the usual 1x C130 and a small medical team, maybe...

If that hypothetically were to have happenned, then clearly this hypothetical National Govt of 2003 weren't exactly going to be kissing Uncle Sam's ass, as claimed by this author and others including Helen in the dying days of the 08 election!

But see, the author used the term "militarily", which is a rather broad brush. Whilst the chardonnay masses may be thinking "holy cow, NZ troops dieing in Iraq", perhaps as in my example the hypothetical reality could have been nothing of the sort. But hey, whenever did this author ever let truth get in the way ....

Let's see what his next article on the ANZAC Rapid Reaction Force will be like. Remember the pollies have stated the ANZAC Rapid Reaction Force is to deal with South Pacific troublespots eg think Solomons, Tonga, Timor etc. So let's see if he tries to draw a very long bow and suggest it is merely a disguise to rejoin ANZUS and/or join up with Uncle Sam's hypothetical future military ventures in say "Iran/China/North Korea" etc....

[steve]

Interesting read Nige in vegas. NZ has always missed the counterweight view to the far left anti american views broadcasted by print and other media since the vietnam wars days. I have a view that if Japan bombed whangarei like they did Darwin our smug outlook view of the world would be much closer to Australias more balanced view in regards to national security issues.

[Dave Homewood]

Very well written Nige. You should send that to the publication as a rebuttal.

[skyhawkdon]

Yes a well written post Nige and I hadn't realised who this guy is - thanks for pointing out his past. I wrote a letter to the editor of The Listener countering the Pop Gun article way back then. I was still in uniform at the time on 75 Sqn so had to choose my words carefully! From memory I don't think they even published it. After that I stopped reading The Listener and started reading Investigate as that seemed to be more aligned with my thinking!

So what do we all think will be in the White Paper? Given the already stated committment by National to keep spending around 1% of GDP I'm not expecting much as that is the crux of the problem - not enough money.

1. As already "rumoured" maybe a few extra light helicopters with weapons?

2. An anti-ship missile for the Orions?

3. Mid Life Upgrade for the Frigates (but not to the same capability level as Australia's)?

4. Perhaps a third 757?

Sadly there won't be a return to service for the Macchis. Instead we will pin our hopes on the Singapore deal coming off.

[SEAN]

5. Selling 30 LAV's (Someone told me this is already under way. and was on the news the other night)...

6. Smaller MPA, to free up the P3's for the bigger jobs.

7. Closing or Woodbourne.

[rubberduck]

Nige, while I'm not 100% familair with some of the local details and people you mention, I agree that your post verges on the brilliant. Good to see some spine and counterpunch in NZ at last! :-)

[skyhawkdon]

I agree with you Phil, but given the shrinking size of the NZDF (and its budget which is shrinking in real terms every year) I think it is ineviatable that some of the training will be done together. For example initial recruit training and the various promotion courses share some common ground like the core military skills, leadership, etc. Maybe doing that tri-service but then have individual service post graduate or job specific training would work?

This is the first I have heard about the possibility of closing Woodbourne. There was some talk a while back of selling it to a local Iwi and leasing it back. If the RNZAF does eventually move out that would be a very sad day - no RNZAF presence in the South Island.

Is this what the Defence Transformation Project is all about? I know nothing about it other than the name.

[tbf25o4]

You should all be aware that the government has issued policy direction to all state departments to centralise their administrative and logistics functions wherever possible. In the defence case the obvious choices are a single service taking on the administration of personnel, including training and career paths (using specialist input from seconded staff), a common logistics agency, and contracting out training or again a single service providing training in all trades except for the very specialist training such as flying.
However, for the last training some of the "ab-initio" training could be contracted out to the new ANZ sponsored New Zealand Air Academy. Ground technical training will I believe in the long term become the responsibility of NMIT using the woodbourne facility

[beagle]

Mar 3, 2010 11:35:40 GMT 12 skyhawkdon said:

I agree with you Phil, but given the shrinking size of the NZDF (and its budget which is shrinking in real terms every year) I think it is ineviatable that some of the training will be done together. For example initial recruit training and the various promotion courses share some common ground like the core military skills, leadership, etc. Maybe doing that tri-service but then have individual service post graduate or job specific training would work?

This is the first I have heard about the possibility of closing Woodbourne. There was some talk a while back of selling it to a local Iwi and leasing it back. If the RNZAF does eventually move out that would be a very sad day - no RNZAF presence in the South Island.

Is this what the Defence Transformation Project is all about? I know nothing about it other than the name.

The main reason they would amalgamate recruit courses would be to save money and they would bring other arguments into it, which a lot of people would not like.
i am not familiar with Army or Navy training but if they were going to combine then Woodbourne should be the place to base it.

I think Woodbourne would never go, actually nothing is ever safe but I think that it is an asset to the government which it can have as bargaining power for local Maori plus also commercial for the area of Marlborough.

As for things to come out of the forth coming White Paper, mmm

MPA don't think so

extra A109's, a distinct possibility 2-3 extra

extra NH-90's. No but maybe in 5 years when they have them in service and see how they are going.

extra B757. wouldn't 40Sqn like one right now. Not sure how they are going at present with regards deploments etc but I would say maintenance / avaliability must be pretty good.

A4's, once each to Ohakea, Wigram and Nowra musuems, rest turned into 2012 toyota hilux's. The deal is gone, stop wasting money storing them and get rid of them. It's not as if in 50 years they would be collectectable warbirds..

if getting rid of 30 LAV's is going to be hopeless without the support structure, then get rid of the lot and get less of of something more suitable.

I did read that the Navy have finally accepted the new OPV's Otago and Wellington so hopefully they might be seen around our ports soon.

As for the outlook on the C130 front....... " look into my crystal ball"

lunch time anyway then since I have not got sky, I will sit down and watch the cricket on prime. Our luck Mc Cullem will go out first over to a silly shot. Was brilliant to watch the other night though.
Yay it's great to have 2 weeks holiday

[Dave Homewood]

I like your optimism Beagle that Toyota will still be going in 2012, after their current major issues. ;D

[beagle]

they better, I have a Toyota and I might need spares in a few years

[corsair67]

Who would buy 30 LAVs without any logistical support (which we are not in a position to provide)?

WINZ could probably use them to deal with some of their more special clients! ;D

[corokid66]

[/quote]
Except the author of that article is the chappy that once upon a time used to write "authoritively" for The Listener specialising in bagging the NZDF (... and SIS .... and the USA ... in fact anyone supporting Western collective security).

He also worked for the Green Party (y'know the only NZ political party that continuosly bags the NZDF ... SAS ... SIS ... USA ...in fact, funnily enough, again anyone supporting Western collective security)!

You may remember the author wrote those articles in the Listener some 10 years ago bagging the F16 lease (and Project Sirius) and called them "pop guns", thus tactfully setting public opinion of the minds of the liberal chardonay masses against the F16 deal as being a waste of money, whereas Defence knew the F16 deal was good because it was relatively super cheap and NZ could upgrade the avionics/sensors/weapons to various levels it felt comfortable with at later dates if the Govt felt there were a need (and in other articles he also knocked the P3 upgrades/Frigates etc). So in other words, Defence weren't being greedy and asking for top-shelf fitout, merely a level just better than the A4's but with capacity to future-proof/upgrade in case the world happenned to go pear shaped one day...

What does ruffled up Gordon have to say this time around in his latest article? Looks like the same old crap again that he repeats in each article he writes, which is in essence:

1. NZ ought to be "independant" and steer well away from the "bad guys" (that's the USA and Australia and the UK etc). In other words withdraw from the western collective security model.

2. Which means NZ won't be needing to spend zillions of dollars on "useless" fighter-bombers, Frigates, guns, etc. Instead spend the money on a coast guard, patrol ships with MG's, peacekeeping etc.

3. Oh and again to sucker in the chardonay masses, sublimely undermine the NZDF and MoD heirachy by claiming they are incompetent when it comes to pricing up contracts to purchase and upgrade equipment.

Let's see what his next article on the ANZAC Rapid Reaction Force will be like. Remember the pollies have stated the ANZAC Rapid Reaction Force is to deal with South Pacific troublespots eg think Solomons, Tonga, Timor etc. So let's see if he tries to draw a very long bow and suggest it is merely a disguise to rejoin ANZUS and/or join up with Uncle Sam's hypothetical future military ventures in say "Iran/China/North Korea" etc....[/quote]

Yes Nige – a very good analysis (or what is called ‘fisking’ in the media world) of what Campbell is trying to create. You are very definately on to something here with this.

Gordon Campbell has a tendency to trundle through leftwing anti-defence / anti western alliance blogs for any wiff of controversy and which he then either twists or spins to his own one dimensional leftist worldview. It took me only 3-4 minutes to find the web pages and blogs he plagiarised. It is a similar modus operandi to his fellow traveller Findlay McDonald. They are the eptitome of trendy arsed, chardonnay swilling, pseudo intellectuals, lefty journalists nobs. There modus operandi is miss-information. Campbell makes a number of outrageous claims from just the flimsiest of facts and layers on the rhetoric until they are fact. Then those facts become the basis of their agenda.

In the first part of this two part article he claims that the Australian DIO were against the White Paper strategic direction and particularly its naming of China as a potential threat. Big Claim – No evidence – But because he dreamed it up or a Gordon Campbell equivalent in Australia like James Coogan did, it is now a lefty factoid that cannot be disputed. Abit like Global Warning! He also described plans for closer interoperability in terms of deployments as “A regional SWAT team” The more emotive the language, the more ‘fear’ created the better.

Read this article and critique it carefully because – it is the sign post for all the anti-defence force spin to emerge from the left when the White Paper is announced. You have to understand that Gordon has spoken he has set the terms of reference for them. They will use the White Paper to scare the public in anyway which they can.

Here are some of Gordon Campbell’s opinions:

“Inevitably, the costs related to setting up and maintaining this force will crowd out some of the peacekeeping activities (carried out under the UN umbrella) that have been consistent with the more independent foreign policy stance of the Clark government.”

[Wrong – the proposed ‘RRF’ component is all about UN mandated SASO type operations under UN Chapter VI or on the rarest of occasions Chapter VII.]

“In the recent past, New Zealand has been able to punch above its weight diplomatically largely because of its readiness to take on a range of multilateral commitments – and from an independent position, not as a predictable helpmate and echo chamber for positions already taken by its traditional allies.”

[NZ has always acted ‘interdependently’ to a certain degree – probably the last 10 years it has acted more interdependently than before. We punch above our weight not due to independence – but to interdependence. If Gordon hadn’t spent his youth getting stoned whilst doing some useless BA he might have realised that post war in the ANZUS era we had a seat at the big table and were listened to. Ireland has an ‘independent’ policy stance – fat lot of good it has done them in the world as they punch well beneath their weight on the world scene. Norway and Denmark act interdependently probably more successful than us however. This White Paper will hopefully enable us acting a bit more like the Scando’s and less like the Irish.]

“Either way, a limited pool of soldiers and equipment can only be stretched so far. The more often the RRF trains together to maximize its efficiency, the larger the impact will be on the current roles being played by our armed forces. In addition, the formation of an RRF would have strategic and diplomatic repercussions in the Pacific, and beyond.”

[No. They will be generally positive repercussions. On any Global standard INTERFET and RAMSI were well supported and gave NZ a lot of credibility.]

“China, given its furious reaction last year to elements of the Australian White Paper, is unlikely to treat the RRF as being for purposes of defence or emergency relief.”

[Rubbish. It won’t care. Should we care what China thinks? No.]

“Having carefully cultivated an independent stance towards China for trade and diplomatic reasons, New Zealand seems about to throw away those advantages by painting itself as Australia’s military helpmate – which could prove very unfortunate for us, given that we cannot bring the sweetener of vast mineral resources to the negotiating table.”



“When it comes to advancing our relationship with China, it is hard to see the RRF as anything other than a self-imposed liability.”

[How? The Chinese want raw resources and trade. They are even less selective than the Yanks. They will do business with anyone. There practices are always kosher. They just get into a sook when they don’t get their own way or are criticised or are caught out doing something naughty. ]

“….we are creating an ANZAC joint strike force before anything that requires a reaction has emerged.”

[Now that really leaps into the realms of fantasy. An ANZAC Joint Strike Force?]

"Of course, it is precisely that ‘starker message of national resolve’ that is likely to raise diplomatic hackles in the Pacific, and beyond. Last month, in the first part of this series, I outlined the risks that New Zealand would be running if it buys into the strategic worldview of the Australians. Last year. Canberra’s own Defence White Paper set out what was widely taken to be a hostile stance towards China and its military role in the region over the next 20 years."

[This statement is hypocritical. The bottom line is New Zealand’s interests first and foremost… On one hand Gordon has a hissy fit because NZ might actually want to work inter-operatively with some traditional defence partners. He implies that we are only doing so as to curry favour with them. Yet he fails to place the same level of intellectual rigour and criticism on himself when he also implies that we should do nothing so as to curry favour with the Chinese, the Green Party in Germany or tiny aid reliant Pacific Islands. It is also unsound because even the Irish have made a start into inter-operability with the EU Nordic Battle Group.]

“Many New Zealanders already resent how this country has become a branch office of the Australian economy. For similar reasons, there could be widespread public resistance against buying into the strategic world view of the Australians on regional and global conflicts.”

[Yes that is right as many New Zealanders do resent this. It became a branch office due to the lack of prudent economic management of the previous government. However, most New Zealanders do not buy into a one dimensional failed leftist world view. They realise that ships and aircraft need safe passage to trade. A Peace Corp singing Kumbiya is not going to do that.]

“Whatever the jargon, we will be perceived to have surrendered a degree of our sovereignty – and in practical terms, that’s exactly what we will have done.”

The only surrendering of our sovereignty that’s going to happen is if we actually do away with any credible deterrence in terms of defence. We need the ANZAC connection with the Aussies a hell of a lot more than us. Some Australian analysts are only supportative because they believe it can hand more of a proportionate role in the low-end type operations in the Pacific that tie up their resources across to NZ. We cannot do it without them unless we want to double our GDP defence spend for the next 10 years. So Mr Gordon Campbell you cannot have it both ways. Save money by being inter-operative with our friends or go it alone and quickly realise that the version of sovereignty you are dreaming of comes with a multi-billion dollar price tag.

My view is that even though I will probably be disappointed in that the White Paper won't go far enough, I will publicly support it because it is at least not Gordon Campbells worldview.

[caromeg]

Nige is on the money.

[nige]

Good grief! I didn't realise his second article on the RRF has come out, here's the link:
werewolf.co.nz/2010/03/playing-aussie-rules-on-defence/
I'll have a read and comment when I get some time later etc.
I don't like bagging people personally, but this guy is no friend of the NZDF and our traditional role in the world. And thanks others here for your kind comments, sure I'd be happy to debate him on his blog, except I want to be sure of my facts (for I am a civviee defence supporter and not an expert, hence please anyone correct any mis-facts of mine from last night or add some insights etc). I'd be a bit cautious of using my real name on his blog, for clearly there is an underhand public misinformation campaign going on (his), and I suspect he will censor opposing viewpoints so let's see in due course what eventuates)! Note how there are many defence related forums in the world, it's a great place for these activists to troll for information (and notice that in general most peacenik sites don't allow public comments to counter their propaganda) but luckily for us, unlike say in 2000 when this chap was denigrating the NZDF, we live in an era of bloggs and we too can get our side of the arguement out to the public! (As opposed to say the Listener at the time deliberately not publishing letters countering his claims etc). Interesting since the Listener ditched Gordon and Finlay, hard case lefties have accused the Listener of being right wing now! Heh heh (I have always bought the listerner and continue to do so), at least the hard core left have the Sunday Socialist Times and their anti-NZDF writings!