This is a discussion on NZDF General discussion thread within the Geo-Strategic Defense forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by AGRA
Here is a map showing an arc 1,000NM around New Zealand:
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?RAN...NGE-COLOR=navy
Where's the threat?
Don't ...
Don't you know the chinese are actively trying to worm their way into a position of power within Fiji? Even the leader of the recent Coup has suggested Fiji become closer to China as a hedge against Australian imperialism within the region!!!
Within 5 years you'll see a SU-30 Flanker carrying Chinese CBG and a powerful SAG operating out of there I'm certain.
Plus of course the ever present H-6/cruise missile threat, that is apparently survivable, unlike Orions and SOW's...
NZ will be sorry if it doesn't have those 24 Hawks in-service then!!!
Thats a very simplistic approach to defence, when you consider most modern warships have a cruising range of over 6000nm. The last time I looked a cruise missile had a range of over 1000nm.
I think you need to think to do some reading on the capability of modern warships and maybe some NZ naval history. As examples: one NZ Cruiser stopped every German merchant ship on the West Coast of South America from Sailing in the weeks leading up to the River Plate. You should also consider the damage caused, and the impact of a single armed merchant cruiser, which operated off the NZ coast in WWI & II. If one ship could cause that much damage then, why not now.
Thats a very simplistic approach to defence, when you consider most modern warships have a cruising range of over 6000nm. The last time I looked a cruise missile had a range of over 1000nm.
I think you need to think to do some reading on the capability of modern warships and maybe some NZ naval history. As examples: one NZ Cruiser closed stopped every up German merchant ship on the West Coast of South America from Sailing in the weeks leading up to the River Plate. You should also consider the damage caused, and the impact of a single armed merchant cruiser, which operated off the NZ coast in WWI & II. If one ship could cause that much damage then, why not now.
What cruise missile has a range over 1000nm? Even Tomahawk barely has that range...
Who is operating vessels with Tomahawk class cruise missiles in the South Pacific (besides the USA) that could be a threat to NZ?
Well RNZN has 2 ANZAC frigates, that individually are more capable than ANY other vessel in the South Pacific (besides any US or Australian vessels in the area) and as has been said RNZAF possesses a maritime strike capability already (limited though it might be) thanks to it's Orions and Seasprites.
Who has the capability in the South Pacific (besides Australia and the USA) to defend against ANY form of maritime strike?
What cruise missile has a range over 1000nm? Even Tomahawk barely has that range...
I stand corrected on the cruise missile range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger
Who is operating vessels with Tomahawk class cruise missiles in the South Pacific (besides the USA) that could be a threat to NZ? Who has the capability in the South Pacific (besides Australia and the USA) to defend against ANY form of maritime strike?
With all due respect, I wasn't focusing solely on a cruise missiles or even cruise missile capable ships. What I was trying to highlight that looking solely at the South Pacific to determine future threats etc to NZ is short sighted. Countries such as China, Japan, India etc are all capable of launching low level maritime threat against NZ. I'm not saying that will happen, but in needs to be factored into NZ defence planing.
With all due respect, I wasn't focusing solely on a cruise missiles or even cruise missile capable ships. What I was trying to highlight that looking solely at the South Pacific to determine future threats etc to NZ is short sighted. Countries such as China, Japan, India etc are all capable of launching low level maritime threat against NZ. I'm not saying that will happen, but in needs to be factored into NZ defence planing.
Sure which is why maintaining at least three types of maritime warfare capabilities is a good idea. The FFHs, the Seasprites and the Orions. Does NZ need a fourth? Especially one that costs far more than the rest as in a tactical fighter force of ~20 F-16s as was planned?
NZ's strategy is quite effective. They have maintained a powerful South Pacific regional force that maintains warfighting capabilities only Australia can match (artillery, high end comms, etc). So they can pretty much defeat every other regional force. They have the means more or less to move it and they have a large maritime patrol force with a maritime combat capability.
What more do they need for their strategic circumstance? Better airlift (A400Ms) and better dual use combat helicopters (Future Lynx). That’s about it and none will require an increase in expenditure based upon what the government wants to allocate.
With all due respect, I wasn't focusing solely on a cruise missiles or even cruise missile capable ships. What I was trying to highlight that looking solely at the South Pacific to determine future threats etc to NZ is short sighted. Countries such as China, Japan, India etc are all capable of launching low level maritime threat against NZ. I'm not saying that will happen, but in needs to be factored into NZ defence planing.
Quite right. There are still German mines of Lyttleton. Its also worth pointing out that direct, pysical threats are not the only concern to nations, so while NZ itself may not face much more of a challange than mines or raiders, any major warfare in Asia would have a direct and immediate impact on the quality/way of life in NZ simply because of how our nation's economy works. And besides, who directly threatened us in WW1? but we still went off to war in 1914.
Well the cost then wasn’t prohibitive and there was this little thing called the Cold War… I’m sure you remember it, frankly you appear to think its still going on.
Given that we were spending 1.8% GDP on defence in 1984, ie back when Lange had hair and Douglas had the mo and the country was bankrupt, and we are now running six billion dollar surplusses, I think you will find that defence spending is a case of what is politically expediant to spend, not what is affordable.
Quote:
Sure they need a battalion for independent or coaltion leading opportunities. Which is why the NZ Govt has forward budgeted around NZ$400m to replace the HMNZ Endeavour. This is money for a much more capable ship or ships and should double (at least) their sealift capability. Of course they could spend this money on some kind of fast jet force but then they would be back where they were in 1995 – no deployable land force but great airshows…
Evidence for funding for Endevours replacement and type of ship?
I would also advert your attention to my statement above on political expediency regarding spending. Moreover I would also point out that NZ still cannot deploy a self sustaining land combat force by itself, even when Canterbury is commissioned, and there are no plans to enable that to happen in any political party.
Quote:
Pure garbage. You need to deploy a minimal self-contained military force which is a sub-unit, company in infantry terms, flight/det in air terms. The NZLAV, Javelin are required to make up minimal Army sub-unit. The same if you were providing a C-130 det you want them to have EWSP and some ballistic protection.
No, pure garbage is what your have witten above: A self contained minimum is a battalion group, this information is contained in the defence forces advise to the incoming government umpteen times in a row.
Quote:
The arty is a legacy capability acquired in the 1980s as part of the Cold War force structure. Certainly when they come up for replacement the NZDF should look at some more lightweight and deployable fire support platforms like the new generation of 120mm mortars.
Oh I see, another "Cold War force structure" type. And what is wrong with the artilley that the capability needs replacement (other than age) with something else?
No, pure garbage is what your have witten above: A self contained minimum is a battalion group, this information is contained in the defence forces advise to the incoming government umpteen times in a row.
NZ has deployed "self contained" units of company level size to the Solomans on peace keeping operations AND to Afghanistan...
Quote:
Oh I see, another "Cold War force structure" type. And what is wrong with the artilley that the capability needs replacement (other than age) with something else?
NZDF ITSELF recognises that it's current 81mm mortars and L118/9 105mm towed guns need upgrading or replacement in the next few years. It IS part of the LTDP...
Given the firepower, terminal effects (similar to 155mm projectiles) , extended range nature of modern 120mm mortar ammunition and the ease of deployment compared to a towed artillery piece, such a capability may be very useful for NZ in replacing it's "ancient" 105mm guns AND 81mm mortars with one system...
NZ has deployed "self contained" units of company level size to the Solomans on peace keeping operations AND to Afghanistan...
With respect to Afghanistan they are effectivly reliant on the NATO organisation for their logistics and higher level protection and support. This support was required by NZ for that company to remain in Afghanistan when the US handed over to NATO, as such they are not self contained.
The same is effectily the same for the Solomons and Timor, our forces are part of an overall structure whithout which the overall mission could not be accomplished.
Quote:
NZDF ITSELF recognises that it's current 81mm mortars and L118/9 105mm towed guns need upgrading or replacement in the next few years. It IS part of the LTDP...
And I never suggested otherwise.
Quote:
Given the firepower, terminal effects (similar to 155mm projectiles) , extended range nature of modern 120mm mortar ammunition and the ease of deployment compared to a towed artillery piece, such a capability may be very useful for NZ in replacing it's "ancient" 105mm guns AND 81mm mortars with one system...
My point was essentially that arguing for somethings replacement on the grounds that it is from a 'Cold War' structure is a logical fallacy. Just because something happens to predate 1990 does not mean that it must be replaced for that reason alone, which is why I had in brackets "other than age".
You have presented an appropriate argument, he did not.
My point was essentially that arguing for somethings replacement on the grounds that it is from a 'Cold War' structure is a logical fallacy. Just because something happens to predate 1990 does not mean that it must be replaced for that reason alone, which is why I had in brackets "other than age".
You have presented an appropriate argument, he did not.
And who the hell said that? If you want to be a Scion of Logic please at least try and get what you're talking about correct.
To recap for the thread reading challenged it was questioned as to why NZ had artillery considering the regional PSO type policy that has evolved. I responded that the arty in question was acquired in the 1980s when NZ had a Cold War orientated policy of maintaining a brigade group for overseas deployments as part of the grand anti-Soviet alliance. When they are due for replacement (steel like flesh wearies and Australia is replacing the very same guns in the next 5ish years) then I suggested perhaps they should be replaced by a more lightweight 120mm mortar system like the USMC's EFSS.
Nothing worse than someone arguing on construct when they have their interpretation so completely wrong.
Thinking that anyone would is ridiculous. ANYONE intending to do so would have to also threaten US and most likely the Americans TOO. Of course with American combat power being on the decline as it is THEY might not be able to assist us or NZ against this mythical foreign power so hell bent on annihilating NZ...
Our combat power is on the decline? Really? As to "assist" I think we would sink or swim together.
Quote:
Whether NZ can finanically afford it is irrelevant, as is the topic of this thread, to be perfectly honest. NZ already IS a power within it's region... Maybe it should read what COULD NZ do to become THE power within it's region...
This is an interesting statement because its true most people just dont know how isolated, and far away from everything NZ actually is. Take a look on a globe one day and you'll see its best defense is the fact that its in the middle of bloody nowhere.
I mean its "out there" and no doubt this geographical reality has played a big part in its Govt.'s defense plans. And its why I said earlier the best thing it can do is get some fast movers on-line for basic air defense just to control its own airspace.
Because for a mythical power to go all this distance with an amphibious assault force and attack the Island??? Well, who is going to do that? China is like over 5,000 miles from the place and they cant even take an island a few miles off their shores.
So if they reconstituted their air force fighter wings to go along with their Protector project they would actually be in pretty good shape. They can trade quantity for the quality they've have always had, and they can do so because they are so far from everything.
I have to wonder, what is this discussion about? Is it about ways to improve the NZDF or ways to make NZ a regional power (whatever that is...)?
If the discussion is really about NZ becoming a regional power, I would have to assume that means the ability to engage in power projection. If one were to assume NZ's region is Oceania/the South Pacific, then NZ is already a regional power. Given the potential opposing local forces, only Australia has a stronger projection capability. I'm not including Malaysia, Singapore or Indonesia in the region because they are more properly ASEAN, not South Pacific.
If, instead the idea is to find ways to improve upon the NZDF, I would think areas to concentrate on first would be improvement of existing capabilities (Anzac & P-3K upgrades come to mind) replacement of equipment reaching end-of-service-life, and then acquisition of dual or multi-use equipment and capabilities. After that, would be addition (or reactivation) of capabilities based upon their potential use.
To that end, while having the RNZAF have an air combat component again would IMV be very good, it should only be done after other, more critical areas have been seen to. Points to consider about having an air combat arm.
Ongoing cost of operations would be ~$200 mil/year (not including initial startup costs)
Only three countries currently could bomb NZ, these are Australia, France or the US. This list isn't likely to change any time soon either.
In terms of maritime strike, it more efficient to arm the sensing platforms (P-3Ks) to carry out a strike, instead of requiring a sensing platform relay that to another aircraft to carry out the strike.
Without AAR (not a current RNZAF capability) a light fighter force is unable to deploy away from NZ.
Now, if NZ could make more efficient use of current aircraft assets (like the MB-339CBs) while keeping costs reasonable, I think that would be a good thing. Otherwise, I'd just as soon see money spent on capabilities NZ is already using and/or struggling to fufil.
-Cheers
Good post Todjaeger.
I suggest that we need to remember that this is a "what if?' thread. I think it needs to be approached with the idea that a new government wants to improve NZ's status as a regional power and is prepared to find the dollars to do it. On that basis I think arguments should be based on how best to spend additional defence money in a way that would enable NZ to exert greater influence within the region.
Some of us have interpreted the region as the SW Pacific area whilst others have extended it to include the ability to contribute to coalition operations alongside other regional powers like Australia. If we include this capability it certainly changes the way we need to look at the areas where the NZDF needs to be enhanced.
Best way for NZ to become a serious regional player is to firstly go & talk to Aussie & other regional partners to determine how they can best contribute to regional joint op's, given that the NZDF will never deploy independently.
Having said that the LTDP pretty much spells out the future direction, no air-combat force & limited combat capability. I do not expect the change of Govt to have a significant impact on this - possibly a little more teeth.
Interesting rather same ol same ol but 'is as capable today as has been in the past 30 years and is as capable as it needs to be' any comments on that statement?
Interesting rather same ol same ol but 'is as capable today as has been in the past 30 years and is as capable as it needs to be' any comments on that statement?
Interesting that Professor Rolfe of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute notes that the ANZUS treaty is no longer "relevant to either party in the post cold war, and especially post 11 September strategic environment". I wonder if the ASPI regards the ANZUS Treaty as relevant to the Australia/USA relationship?
