Changing the subject slightly, what ever happened to having some armour support for our LAV's? I'm thinking along the lines of what the Irish and Mexican armies use as their main offensive/defensive weapons, which are the French Panhard AML-90 and ERC-90 armoured cars. Opinions?[/QUOTE]


My thoughts would be the CV 90 WITH A 50MM Bushmaster cannon....is this close to a ERC - 90?

STATS

In service 1993-present

Designer Hägglunds/Bofors
Manufacturer BAE Systems Hägglunds
Number built Over 1,000
Specifications
Weight 23-35 tonnes (Mk0 to MkIII)
Length 6.55 m
Width 3.1 m
Height 2.7 m
Crew 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
7 troopers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary
armament 40mm Bofors Autocannon,
30mm Bushmaster Cannon (MkI & MkII export model) or 35/50 mm Bushmaster Cannon (MkIII export model)
Secondary
armament 7.62 mm Browning machine gun
Engine Scania DSI 14 litres or DSI 16, V8 Diesel
550-810 hp (410- 595 kW) 2300 nm
Power/weight 24.1 hp/tonne
Transmission Automatic
Suspension torsion bar
Operational
range 320 km
Speed 70 km/h

^^
The CV-90, I think, can also be armed with a 90mm cannon as well, which is what the AML-90 and the ERC-90 are armed with as well. However, I think an armoured car would be better, considering it is easier to maintain since they use wheels instead of tracks and both can be put back into production should any new orders arise. Or we could use another French armoured car: the AMX-10 which uses a 105mm cannon. But all vehicles discussed are capable of being airlifted by C-130 aircraft. I was going to suggest the Stryker which is essentially an LAV with a large gun on it, but it had a rather poor initial service record when it first went into action in Iraq.

I saw two convoys of about 7 - 8 Tanks on trailers heading through napier today - not LAVS, these were huge! massive cannons, machine guns on top. these were not the puny lavs i thought we had, the had the proper metal wheels or belts - what ever u call them. looked very american. someone please explain.... it was very heavy equipment.

They'd have been privately owned I imagine. Possibly going from port of Tauranga to somewhere? Someone's probably imported a bunch of old tanks.

the nz army were escorting them, with their trucks, and they looked brand new, im no expert on tanks but they were brand new, or they all had a fresh paint job.

the nz army were escorting them, with their trucks, and they looked brand new, im no expert on tanks but they were brand new, or they all had a fresh paint job.

Could be Aussie 'Abrahems" they would of been on truck carriers as they have metal tracks and would of made a mess of the roads
were they an off beige colour?

Aussies are keen to trial there new tanks in our waioru central alpine conditions in conjuction with our LAVS as the NZ Lav is far more versitial than there own equivalent in waist deep mud and water

Does makes sense to me what Napier Man is saying

Could be Aussie 'Abrahems" they would of been on truck carriers as they have metal tracks and would of made a mess of the roads
were they an off beige colour?

Aussies are keen to trial there new tanks in our waioru central alpine conditions in conjuction with our LAVS as the NZ Lav is far more versitial than there own equivalent in waist deep mud and water

Does makes sense to me what Napier Man is saying

^^
Regardless of what people say re the NZ Lav. Its a great machine ..superior to all others in its class - except lacking for armour protection of heavier tracked carriers...however much faster and more versitile
20 - 30 or so medium to main tanks is all we need to make a very good armoured corps

And where are we supposed to get these "medium to light" tanks? There are hardly any AMX-13's left in service and unless we prize a few SK-105's from Austria, they are out of the question as well. The CV-90 doesn't work because it's technically an IFV. Did you read my response to your earlier post, Easty. I proposed a rather interesting vehicle in there.

And where are we supposed to get these "medium to light" tanks? There are hardly any AMX-13's left in service and unless we prize a few SK-105's from Austria, they are out of the question as well. The CV-90 doesn't work because it's technically an IFV. Did you read my response to your earlier post, Easty. I proposed a rather interesting vehicle in there.

Yes ..spot on Kiwi Guy..sorry
You would think they would be of acceptable cost as well
Would certainly cover that mobile anti tank and artillery support needed to protect the LAVS:)

Yes ..spot on Kiwi Guy..sorry
You would think they would be of acceptable cost as well
Would certainly cover that mobile anti tank and artillery support needed to protect the LAVS:)

Which is why I propose the AMX-10 (again). It is the same, or similar size to a light tank, is air transportable and has a 105mm gun. It has wheels, so it would cost way less to maintain than a light tank because it doesn't require the costly steering systems, transmissions, engines and tracks which tracked vehicles have.

Which is why I propose the AMX-10 (again). It is the same, or similar size to a light tank, is air transportable and has a 105mm gun. It has wheels, so it would cost way less to maintain than a light tank because it doesn't require the costly steering systems, transmissions, engines and tracks which tracked vehicles have.

yep..that would work...and work well
How much do you think they are a piece?

Dunno how much, maybe slightly more expensive than the LAV's. It weighs about 16 tonnes at full combat weight (compared with 19 tonnes for the LAV) and can do 20-30 km/h off road and 80km/h on road. It's primarily a mobile reconisance unit but it is perfectly capable of performing armoured support capabilities and is capable of knocking out tanks.

I think youll find the army will also put in a request for heavier 155mm howitzers as the Huey was limited in its ability to lynch carry the current P Shooter 105mm only
The NH 90 has the ability to lynch carry the 155mm ..a far better defensive offensive and longer range beast than the 105mm

I think youll find the army will also put in a request for heavier 155mm howitzers as the Huey was limited in its ability to lynch carry the current P Shooter 105mm only
The NH 90 has the ability to lynch carry the 155mm ..a far better defensive offensive and longer range beast than the 105mm

I agree. There's plenty of 155mm howitzers on the market- some second hand American M198 155mm howitzers would be great for the job, as we could have our crews trained before purchasing in Australia as they have them as well...........assuming we actually buy them of course.

M198 is about 3 tonnes too heavy for the NH90. The new m777 might squeeze in, and its replacing the M198 over here anyway. Australian army has chinooks for that type of thing though. Remember you need to carry a 9 man artillery crew as well.

M198 is about 3 tonnes too heavy for the NH90. The new m777 might squeeze in, and its replacing the M198 over here anyway. Australian army has chinooks for that type of thing though. Remember you need to carry a 9 man artillery crew as well.

But you need those Chinooks for the vast distances that have to be covered in Australia. Obviously in NZ, the distances are a lot less, which is why our artillery is trucked around, hitched to the back of our Unimogs. It may take longer but it frees up the helicopters to perform vital tasks for the infantry.

There's plenty of 155mm howitzers out there though.

There is an English speaking country in our region of about 4 million people that is a close ally with Australia. We regularly conduct military exercises with them and we look to them as a key ally and partner that would fight alongside us in a regional conflict.

They have 40 old Skyhawk jet fighters in storage.

They also have 143 fighter jets currently in service (the latest F15 variants plus F16 and F5), 60 transport helos, 20 Apache attack helos, 10 C130s plus AWACs and air refuelling tankers.

Their army is 72,000 strong, they have 96 leopard 2 main battle tanks, 372 light tanks, 1,122 infantry fighting vehicles, 1,250 armoured personnel carriers plus the latest self propelled artillery.

Their navy has 6 submarines, 6 of the latest generation stealth frigates and 6 corvettes all armed with Harpoon anti-ship missiles, 12 offshore patrol craft, 4 large amphibious dock ships and 4 high tech minesweepers.

I’l l give you a hint it’s not New Zealand – it’s Singapore. And Malaysia is not far behind. They also have some of the most capable fighter aircraft in the region, main battle tanks and a submarine equipped navy.

Although the ANZAC tradition is a common history we shared , it’s just that – it’s history. It’s a sad fact but it’s no longer central to Australia’s (or the regions for that matter) current security alliances.

I guess it all depends on what part of the world you see yourself in. NZ looks only as far as its pacific island brothers. A couple of frigates and a handful of Hercules and you can make yourself out to be the big brother to the smaller nations in your backyard.

Australia on the other hand sees itself as part of the SE Asian region. Some of this comes from the fact our cities were bombed and shelled and we were threatened with invasion. NZ wasn’t.

So our attitude to defense is different. SE Asian nations know where the real threat is - northern Asia (China to be precise) – and the real numbers of military hardware we face.
Which is why to us the idea of selling off 30 of so of the few NZLAVs you have is sheer lunacy.

BTW anyone in NZ who thinks Indonesia is seen as a threat by Australians is living in the past. Our navies and air forces exercise together. We are more likely to be fighting alongside them in a conflict than against them.

When we want some military muscle to back us up we now look northwards not across the Tasman.

The world has moved on. Sorry guys you had a chance but you missed the boat 20 years ago.

yes, all very well CapitolOz, have you ever considered though - the world we lived in if an army ever invaded New Zealand? to what point or purpose would any superpower bring their military all the way down here? The World would be seriously fucked for that to happen. First Australia would have to be overrun, or Australia would have to harbor this unknown enemy, because of the distance, and if not that, Australia would be instigating the invasion themselves. Australia would never invade us, because of the strict international rules, and if broken would bring herself more enemies and crucial alliances would be broken. Before all that happens, its not unlikely that a few nuclear weapons would have been let off, and we would all be stuffed anyway. I will welcome any thoughts of possible scenarios where NZ is invaded cleanly and successfully without the rest of the 1st world countries standing by watching and without serious implications on the rest of the world and the invading force- it begs the question: who, and why?

Well said, CapitalOz. As a Kiwi I agree 100% with what you say.

NZers tend to see Australia as a Pacific nation like themselves. Of course that's only a part of the story. Australia also has huge interests in SE Asia and the Indian Ocean, and it's in those two areas that all the action is.

The dominant factor in NZ's foreign policy and military is our semi-socialist society. Our policies have, for decades, been heavily influenced by the pacifist, disarmament mentality of the 60s anti-war and 80s anti-nuke movements. The last gasp of that was the Clark administration from 1999-2008. NZ's policy on these matters is now so disjointed and bereft of any vision that nothing will change anytime soon. We rely, tacitly, and sub-consciously, on Australia and America, as exhibited by NapierMan's attitude.

As I proposed in a slightly earlier comment, NZ could do best with a highly trained, well equipped, Marine/SAS-type force, based around the navy, that could offer excellent and targeted support to our allies and serve out interests in the Pacific.

Yes, we are a long way away from all the trouble in the world, but that doesn't mean you stay as quiet as a mouse and cowardly let your erstwhile allies [allies that you've insulted and shunned] pick up the tab. In fact, it's our very isolation and reliance on our former ANZUS partners that makes it essential for us to contribute and show some balls by having a smart, well-trained military.

^^ They should facebook-ise these forums, sometimes a simple like is all i feel like doing when i read a post i agree with lol. However i will say this: I agree 100pc with CapitolOz and Nuwanda. NZ defense is a joke. Small numbers and questionable equipment. A marine/SAS type force is exactly what NZ should be looking to achieve being the island nation we are. Iv also always thought that if the best - or close to - equipment is provided, the numbers will come. No one wants to join an airfoce with aspirations of being a pilot and know the best theyre going to be able to fly is an ageing C130, orion or if theyre very lucky an NH90 (when they arrive). The same for the army and navy. join the navy and the chance of getting on a frigate, the only ship in my mind worth being on, is zilch. Most likely you'll be thrown onto one of the IPV chasing round little fishing boats and rescuing recreational sailors who were too ambitious in their weather predictions. All in all, to me anyhow, the forces look very unattractive as a career... thoughts...?

There are four possible axes of threat for Australia. The most commonly assumed one (in part because historically it has already been tried) is from the north. The close proximity of the island chains to the Australian continent makes this the most logistically feasible for an aggressor.

That’s why Australia has generally quite sensibly been moving more of our forces to the north with army bases in Darwin and Townsville and RAAF Tindall developed as a permanent fighter presence along with ‘bare bases’ at Learmouth and Curtin in WA and Scherger on Cape York in Queensland.

However what is different now for any ‘major Asian power’ attempting to emulate the Japanese sweep down through South East Asia is that the countries there are no longer colonial outposts of European powers.

In WWII their defence was generally characterised by poorly equipped/trained and poorly led troops with little or no armour or air cover reliant on small numbers of obsolete aircraft. Now they are independent nations with large standing armies (Singapore has more than 360,000 trained reservists) who will fiercely defend their homelands and they are armed with some of the most modern equipment. So it will not be the cake walk that some suppose – or the obvious route to invade Australia.

Generally the southern approach is ruled out because of the logistics and the wild weather in the Southern Ocean doesn’t offer for the mild seas states needed for large-scale amphib operations.

We now have two emerging nuclear superpowers either already with the aircraft carriers necessary to provide strike power for amphib assaults (India to the west) or developing them (China to from the north or the eastern approaches).

Let me float one possibility that never seems to occur to Kiwis generally or to NZ defence planners when they ask themselves the question ‘why would anyone invade NZ?’

Consider a ‘major Asian power’ to our north who decides that it’s easier to take Australia’s natural resources by force than continue to pay for them.

Let’s say they decide it’s all a bit too hard (and unnecessary given the softer option before them) to fight their way down through south east Asia against heavily armed opposition. They might find, as the Japanese did, that they drain their combat resources and end up at the tail of a long logistic chain and then it all becomes too hard to invade Oz.

They know that even if they do get ashore in the north they will have to fight their way through some very inhospitable terrain over very long distances to attack the industrial and population heart in the south east corner which would be necessary to completely defeat Australia.

What if there were an island chain, not to the north of Australia but to the south east that could form a base for air and amphib attacks? (An unsinkable aircraft carrier as the US saw Britain in 1944 to launch the invasion of Europe)

What if, conveniently this island nation had no fighter aircraft unlike those troublesome Singaporeans, Thais, Malaysians and Indonesians? What if they had a navy with no submarines, no anti-ship missiles? What if their army was only light infantry with no main battle tanks?

Scary thought isn’t it? (If you are a Kiwi at least).

So don’t assume that an aggressor would ‘have’ to defeat Australia first. Given the current state of your defences if they were a smart enemy they might well adopt a ‘New Zealand first’ policy. Why would they not take the soft option if you present them with one?

There is an old adage that armies prepare for the next war based on their experience and assumptions about the last war. The only thing is it almost never turns out that way.

Like I said Napierman things change.

Sorry guys you had a chance but you missed the boat 20 years ago.

Sounds like we have moved on, but you haven't. This is the same drivel we have been hearing for the last 20yrs.

Although the ANZAC tradition is a common history we shared , it’s just that – it’s history.

Australia never respected the full ANZAC heritage anyway. As someone who sat through about 6 ANZAC days while working in Sydney, the lack of comment about NZ's participation was galling.


It’s a sad fact but it’s no longer central to Australia’s (or the regions for that matter) current security alliances.

And this is what I don't get. You've moved on from us, but we should still follow you with our cheque book in hand. You can have your priorities, but we can't have ours. One-eyed lunacy.

There are four possible axes of threat for Australia. The most commonly assumed one (in part because historically it has already been tried) is from the north. The close proximity of the island chains to the Australian continent makes this the most logistically feasible for an aggressor.

That’s why Australia has generally quite sensibly been moving more of our forces to the north with army bases in Darwin and Townsville and RAAF Tindall developed as a permanent fighter presence along with ‘bare bases’ at Learmouth and Curtin in WA and Scherger on Cape York in Queensland.

However what is different now for any ‘major Asian power’ attempting to emulate the Japanese sweep down through South East Asia is that the countries there are no longer colonial outposts of European powers.

In WWII their defence was generally characterised by poorly equipped/trained and poorly led troops with little or no armour or air cover reliant on small numbers of obsolete aircraft. Now they are independent nations with large standing armies (Singapore has more than 360,000 trained reservists) who will fiercely defend their homelands and they are armed with some of the most modern equipment. So it will not be the cake walk that some suppose – or the obvious route to invade Australia.

Generally the southern approach is ruled out because of the logistics and the wild weather in the Southern Ocean doesn’t offer for the mild seas states needed for large-scale amphib operations.

We now have two emerging nuclear superpowers either already with the aircraft carriers necessary to provide strike power for amphib assaults (India to the west) or developing them (China to from the north or the eastern approaches).

Let me float one possibility that never seems to occur to Kiwis generally or to NZ defence planners when they ask themselves the question ‘why would anyone invade NZ?’

Consider a ‘major Asian power’ to our north who decides that it’s easier to take Australia’s natural resources by force than continue to pay for them.

Let’s say they decide it’s all a bit too hard (and unnecessary given the softer option before them) to fight their way down through south east Asia against heavily armed opposition. They might find, as the Japanese did, that they drain their combat resources and end up at the tail of a long logistic chain and then it all becomes too hard to invade Oz.

They know that even if they do get ashore in the north they will have to fight their way through some very inhospitable terrain over very long distances to attack the industrial and population heart in the south east corner which would be necessary to completely defeat Australia.

What if there were an island chain, not to the north of Australia but to the south east that could form a base for air and amphib attacks? (An unsinkable aircraft carrier as the US saw Britain in 1944 to launch the invasion of Europe)

What if, conveniently this island nation had no fighter aircraft unlike those troublesome Singaporeans, Thais, Malaysians and Indonesians? What if they had a navy with no submarines, no anti-ship missiles? What if their army was only light infantry with no main battle tanks?

Scary thought isn’t it? (If you are a Kiwi at least).

So don’t assume that an aggressor would ‘have’ to defeat Australia first. Given the current state of your defences if they were a smart enemy they might well adopt a ‘New Zealand first’ policy. Why would they not take the soft option if you present them with one?

There is an old adage that armies prepare for the next war based on their experience and assumptions about the last war. The only thing is it almost never turns out that way.

Like I said Napierman things change.

^^

Yawn...!!
Your a nerd mate..If I printed your comments out..it wouldnt be worth using as toilet paper:ohno:

Hangman.. the new m777 hows it been taken by the field gunners....are they liking it?

Like I said .... things change.


Exactly. Now we have changed to isolationism. It's good.

Up until 1945 we were engaged in an Empire based defence.
After 1945 we were involved in an anti-Communist alliance.
Since 1990, there's no real strategic threat. Isolationism beats being part of an anti-imaginary bogeyman alliance.

I'd rather have cheaper taxes, than some really expensive cool toys for other people to perform fly-bys during ANZAC day parades. Military hardware is really expensive these days, it's no longer a few combustion engined vehicles, it's expensive & complex systems with never ending upgrades and maintenance.

But I have no isuues with Australia's defence budget. Australia is big, rich, full of resource and close to neighbours and sea lanes. It's understandable that Australia needs a larger defence budget that NZ & they can afford it.

(Although if the Fed govt were responsible for all the essential sevices like schools, health, transport, police etc rather than the state govts, then I reckon we would see a smaller ADF and probably a lot less pokie machines)

Exactly. Now we have changed to isolationism. It's good.

Up until 1945 we were engaged in an Empire based defence.
After 1945 we were involved in an anti-Communist alliance.
Since 1990, there's no real strategic threat. Isolationsism beats being part of an anti-imaginary bogeyman alliance.

I'd rather have cheaper taxes, than some really expensive cool toys for other people to perform fly-bys during ANZAC day parades. Military hardware is really expensive these days, it's no longer a few combustion engined vehicles. It's expensice & complex systems with never ending upgrades and maintenance.

But I have no isuues with Australia's defence budget. Australia is big, rich, full of resource and close to neighbours and sea lanes. It's understandable that Australia needs a larger defence budget that NZ & they can afford it.

(Although if the Fed govt were responsible for all the essential sevices like schools, health, transport, police etc then I reckon we would see a smaller ADF and probably a lot less pokie machines)

I beg to disagree re isolationisim
Although its always a good discussion.

And this is what I don't get. You've moved on from us, but we should still follow you with our cheque book in hand. You can have your priorities, but we can't have ours. One-eyed lunacy.

What exactly are NZ's priorities? To pretend that aggression is a thing of the past and hide behind the skirts of Australia and the US?

As a Kiwi, I'm not suggesting that all--or even most--of Australia's defence concerns match ours. What I'm saying is that since NZ is a small player, and even if we were wealthier and had smart defence force, that we would still need to rely upon allies in the event of aggression.

The issue is how we contribute to a common alliance, not if we can outspend any particular nation or follow an ally blindly.

What exactly are NZ's priorities? To pretend that aggression is a thing of the past and hide behind the skirts of Australia and the US?

As a Kiwi, I'm not suggesting that all--or even most--of Australia's defence concerns match ours. What I'm saying is that since NZ is a small player, and even if we were wealthier and had smart defence force, that we would still need to rely upon allies in the event of aggression.

The issue is how we contribute to a common alliance, not if we can outspend any particular nation or follow an ally blindly.

We need to spend more...and cut back on the waste in student loans.
1 .5 billion a year over 10 years in key areas ( wont bore with detail)
Would ensure we have the smart technology...The actual NZD armed force personal are leading world class.Any person that knows the military ( inside) anywhere in the world would agree with that statement.
Saudi spends on its defence 4x what Australia does ..it has a population of 10 million nationals.....That money does not make them fine armed force personal...I makes them armed personal with a lot of tech

Its when you combine the both with appropriate thought and vision...you become a respected force.

^^

Yawn...!!
Your a nerd mate..If I printed your comments out..it wouldnt be worth using as toilet paper:ohno:

Hangman.. the new m777 hows it been taken by the field gunners....are they liking it?

Good to see the high standard of debate about NZ's shrinking defence continues. LOL Can't say I'm surprised.

Good to see the high standard of debate about NZ's shrinking defence continues. LOL Can't say I'm surprised.

^^

you present your comments as if you see yourself as some kind of expert...but your not.
Unless you prove yourself with comments that are worth replying to

There is an English speaking country in our region of about 4 million people that is a close ally with Australia. We regularly conduct military exercises with them and we look to them as a key ally and partner that would fight alongside us in a regional conflict.

They have 40 old Skyhawk jet fighters in storage.

They also have 143 fighter jets currently in service (the latest F15 variants plus F16 and F5), 60 transport helos, 20 Apache attack helos, 10 C130s plus AWACs and air refuelling tankers.

Their army is 72,000 strong, they have 96 leopard 2 main battle tanks, 372 light tanks, 1,122 infantry fighting vehicles, 1,250 armoured personnel carriers plus the latest self propelled artillery.

Their navy has 6 submarines, 6 of the latest generation stealth frigates and 6 corvettes all armed with Harpoon anti-ship missiles, 12 offshore patrol craft, 4 large amphibious dock ships and 4 high tech minesweepers.

I’l l give you a hint it’s not New Zealand – it’s Singapore. And Malaysia is not far behind. They also have some of the most capable fighter aircraft in the region, main battle tanks and a submarine equipped navy.

Although the ANZAC tradition is a common history we shared , it’s just that – it’s history. It’s a sad fact but it’s no longer central to Australia’s (or the regions for that matter) current security alliances.

I guess it all depends on what part of the world you see yourself in. NZ looks only as far as its pacific island brothers. A couple of frigates and a handful of Hercules and you can make yourself out to be the big brother to the smaller nations in your backyard.

Australia on the other hand sees itself as part of the SE Asian region. Some of this comes from the fact our cities were bombed and shelled and we were threatened with invasion. NZ wasn’t.

So our attitude to defense is different. SE Asian nations know where the real threat is - northern Asia (China to be precise) – and the real numbers of military hardware we face.
Which is why to us the idea of selling off 30 of so of the few NZLAVs you have is sheer lunacy.

BTW anyone in NZ who thinks Indonesia is seen as a threat by Australians is living in the past. Our navies and air forces exercise together. We are more likely to be fighting alongside them in a conflict than against them.

When we want some military muscle to back us up we now look northwards not across the Tasman.

The world has moved on. Sorry guys you had a chance but you missed the boat 20 years ago.

The Reds are coming, the Reds are coming!!!!1

We need to spend more...and cut back on the waste in student loans.
1 .5 billion a year over 10 years in key areas ( wont bore with detail)
Would ensure we have the smart technology...The actual NZD armed force personal are leading world class.Any person that knows the military ( inside) anywhere in the world would agree with that statement.
Saudi spends on its defence 4x what Australia does ..it has a population of 10 million nationals.....That money does not make them fine armed force personal...I makes them armed personal with a lot of tech

Its when you combine the both with appropriate thought and vision...you become a respected force.


Lol what? Yeah let's waste money on useless hardware we're never going to use instead of tertiary education (not saying the incentives around loans couldn't be tightened up but that's another story)

Good to see the high standard of debate about NZ's shrinking defence continues. LOL Can't say I'm surprised.

And that's the issue, really.

You can't expect an informed debate when the instigators (the pro-Australia defence policy) base their position on flawed assumptions, ridiculous comparisons and shifting goal posts.

Comparing us with Singapore when the only thing we have in common is population size? Great. I look forward to your comments on Australia's pathetic defense spending in comparison with, say, Israel, a country 1/3rd your population size. But you wont have - different region, different peceptions, different threats, different accessibility by those threats.

You can't belittle NZ for being a small, insignificant, pacific island nation isolated from the rest of the world.......actually, you can - because its all true. Hence you've "moved on" to bigger priorities. I would expect nothing less if I were in your shoes.

But if you take that position today, don't turn around tomorrow and act like we have acquired 16m extra people (and the military funding from taxes that goes along with it), and moved to the Malacca straits in the blink of an eye.

Make up your mind.

What exactly are NZ's priorities? To pretend that aggression is a thing of the past and hide behind the skirts of Australia and the US?

As a Kiwi, I'm not suggesting that all--or even most--of Australia's defence concerns match ours. What I'm saying is that since NZ is a small player, and even if we were wealthier and had smart defence force, that we would still need to rely upon allies in the event of aggression.

The issue is how we contribute to a common alliance, not if we can outspend any particular nation or follow an ally blindly.

You make a very good point - the need for a smart, mobile defence force. And we do have one. And it contributes admirably to conflicts all over the world, as well as at home.

But because we don't spend as much as the Australian Ministry of Defence would like in response to "the region's" (read: Australia's) threats, we end up with ridiculous, emotive comments like those inferring we don't contribute, or suggesting we are "hiding behind the skirts of the Australian and the US".

Anyway, I wonder how Australia and the US defence forces feel about NZers telling them they wear skirts....

The Reds are coming, the Reds are coming!!!!1




Lol what? Yeah let's waste money on useless hardware we're never going to use instead of tertiary education (not saying the incentives around loans couldn't be tightened up but that's another story)
^^
ROTFL what!Student loans is a fast ..a Labour bribe thats costing this country billions in non paid loans of primarily white middle to upper class students and families :)who used it ( only a percentage on direct education needs) before moving on to their OE
The debt is 4 -5 x bigger ( 13 billion) than anything on the table than say for maori settlement.. or the 2 billion spent of defence annually!

Tell me ...if you valued your home or car...would you lock it or have a security system?...same argument here re useless hardware:)

You make a very good point - the need for a smart, mobile defence force. And we do have one. And it contributes admirably to conflicts all over the world, as well as at home.

But because we don't spend as much as the Australian Ministry of Defence would like in response to "the region's" (read: Australia's) threats, we end up with ridiculous, emotive comments like those inferring we don't contribute, or suggesting we are "hiding behind the skirts of the Australian and the US".

Anyway, I wonder how Australia and the US defence forces feel about NZers telling them they wear skirts....

We have a smart, mobile defence force? LAVs, new boats that can't perform their roles? It's a joke.

NZers tend to get a tad touchy when they're criticised. Thin skins. It's a cultural problem. That's why the level of debate online is sophomoric and adolescent at times.

NZ spends 1.1% of GDP on defence, Australia, 1.8%. Considering Australia is about 1/3 wealthier than NZ, I'd say that makes things pretty much the same re commitment.

We have a smart, mobile defence force? LAVs, new boats that can't perform their roles? It's a joke.

NZers tend to get a tad touchy when they're criticised. Thin skins. It's a cultural problem. That's why the level of debate online is sophomoric and adolescent at times.

NZ spends 1.1% of GDP on defence, Australia, 1.8%. Considering Australia is about 1/3 wealthier than NZ, I'd say that makes things pretty much the same re commitment.

Both sides of the debate are idiotic at times. And I think you'll find most countries aren't too flash at taking criticism from foreign quarters. 6yrs working in Sydney taught me that.

But looking at your last paragraph, I am assuming your issue is not with our level of committment, but rather the quality? That's a completely different argument.

This would be a good discussion, but - as some of you forget, there is no money, and I would prefer the government spent money on things that make NZ a worth while place to live - health, education, and such, to create a high living standard. The other point, about being realistic - is that there is simply no threat of a mass scale invasion, for Nz or Australia. I challenge you to name the country that would be STUPID enough to do so. Both countries being allied to America any country including China would not be so STUPID to risk their trade and economy with a economic and military superpower like America. We are not hiding behind America, but the fact remains that China is more likely to buy NZ than invade it, this is the 21st century, NOT 1942, its a money empire now - NOT land. The risks of invading Aus are too great, so I say again, if China does not invade Aus, what do we have that they so desperately want? GEt Real. NZ cant afford luxuries when there are plenty of other issues that need to be addressed. Anyone who goes around saying Nz should be more aggressive and have intimidating hardware is unrealistic- is either a serious dreamer or has a really small cock. :nuts:

^^
ROTFL what!Student loans is a fast ..a Labour bribe thats costing this country billions in non paid loans of primarily white middle to upper class students and families :)who used it ( only a percentage on direct education needs) before moving on to their OE
The debt is 4 -5 x bigger ( 13 billion) than anything on the table than say for maori settlement.. or the 2 billion spent of defence annually!

Tell me ...if you valued your home or car...would you lock it or have a security system?...same argument here re useless hardware:)


Lock it with what? Bluetak? That's what the effect would be considering the power of the any country with the ability to invade us. When our relations deteriorate with anyone to the point war seems possible, maybe then we should think about military. As this will likely not be anytime in the forseeable future, it's a waste of money. The developed world is very interdependant these days.

Also...loans are paid back. They're loans!

This would be a good discussion, but - as some of you forget, there is no money, and I would prefer the government spent money on things that make NZ a worth while place to live - health, education, and such, to create a high living standard. The other point, about being realistic - is that there is simply no threat of a mass scale invasion, for Nz or Australia. I challenge you to name the country that would be STUPID enough to do so. Both countries being allied to America any country including China would not be so STUPID to risk their trade and economy with a economic and military superpower like America. We are not hiding behind America, but the fact remains that China is more likely to buy NZ than invade it, this is the 21st century, NOT 1942, its a money empire now - NOT land. The risks of invading Aus are too great, so I say again, if China does not invade Aus, what do we have that they so desperately want? GEt Real. NZ cant afford luxuries when there are plenty of other issues that need to be addressed. Anyone who goes around saying Nz should be more aggressive and have intimidating hardware is unrealistic- is either a serious dreamer or has a really small cock. :nuts:

A lot of your comments make sence.However it is a good discussion.As long as people dont go into La.. La.. land with their pan asian/global conspirency theories..
My point here is.NZ can afford an enhanced capability with more focused spending and an increase of 500 million a year for 10 years. My argument is that this amount is a drop in the ocean compared to the wasted money on student loans ...as an example
Why do we need to upgrade certain parts of our defence.?
Its certainly not a forseeable land invasion by Asia as some nerd in Brisbane has commented on.
Its to ensure we have a mobile highly skilled and properly armed defence force - that can partake in global hotspots such as Afghanistan - as and when requiered.with an intergrated army ( we do well already..however some better firepower) and airforce with better uplift.To do this properly, our equipment must also be able to intergrate with other International force's..such as USA/Canada and UK/NATO...which does mean continued investment .Closer to home it would be the ozzies.
This does not mean a force of significant size. But a force with the right equipment.. that will help make a difference..

You don't need to increase funding or have the latest equipment to integrate with foreign forces. Cooperation is a start, but that went out the window when you guys didn't allow the Yanks to dock their nuclear ships in NZ ports. Ciao ANZUS :)

^^
What are you going on about?
Last time I looked the cooperation between the NZ Armed forces, Australia and several Asian countries was doing just fine. In Afganistan NZ and US forces cooperate too.
However misguided the Nuclear ban was, it hasn't hampered NZ participation in multinational operations.

You don't need to increase funding or have the latest equipment to integrate with foreign forces. Cooperation is a start, but that went out the window when you guys didn't allow the Yanks to dock their nuclear ships in NZ ports. Ciao ANZUS :)

mmmm your stuck in the 90's with your comments
The relationship with the US is going very nicely across all aspects of the military

There is an English speaking country in our region of about 4 million people that is a close ally with Australia. We regularly conduct military exercises with them and we look to them as a key ally and partner that would fight alongside us in a regional conflict.

They have 40 old Skyhawk jet fighters in storage.

They also have 143 fighter jets currently in service (the latest F15 variants plus F16 and F5), 60 transport helos, 20 Apache attack helos, 10 C130s plus AWACs and air refuelling tankers.

Their army is 72,000 strong, they have 96 leopard 2 main battle tanks, 372 light tanks, 1,122 infantry fighting vehicles, 1,250 armoured personnel carriers plus the latest self propelled artillery.

Their navy has 6 submarines, 6 of the latest generation stealth frigates and 6 corvettes all armed with Harpoon anti-ship missiles, 12 offshore patrol craft, 4 large amphibious dock ships and 4 high tech minesweepers.

I’l l give you a hint it’s not New Zealand – it’s Singapore. And Malaysia is not far behind. They also have some of the most capable fighter aircraft in the region, main battle tanks and a submarine equipped navy.

Although the ANZAC tradition is a common history we shared , it’s just that – it’s history. It’s a sad fact but it’s no longer central to Australia’s (or the regions for that matter) current security alliances.

I guess it all depends on what part of the world you see yourself in. NZ looks only as far as its pacific island brothers. A couple of frigates and a handful of Hercules and you can make yourself out to be the big brother to the smaller nations in your backyard.

Australia on the other hand sees itself as part of the SE Asian region. Some of this comes from the fact our cities were bombed and shelled and we were threatened with invasion. NZ wasn’t.

So our attitude to defense is different. SE Asian nations know where the real threat is - northern Asia (China to be precise) – and the real numbers of military hardware we face.
Which is why to us the idea of selling off 30 of so of the few NZLAVs you have is sheer lunacy.

BTW anyone in NZ who thinks Indonesia is seen as a threat by Australians is living in the past. Our navies and air forces exercise together. We are more likely to be fighting alongside them in a conflict than against them.

When we want some military muscle to back us up we now look northwards not across the Tasman.

The world has moved on. Sorry guys you had a chance but you missed the boat 20 years ago.

A couple of frontier settlements hardly constitutes 'our cities' :lol:

Comparing Singapore and N.Z.'s geopolitical situations is beyond rediculous.

N.Z. is a Pacific nation and should focus on what is appropriate for that region (ie: maritime patrol, distaster relief, humanitarian aid, search and rescue).

I think it was actually the 80s...

Nicely, maybe, but military ties are still limited.

Despite signs of rapprochement in recent years, military relationships with the US remain limited, although senior US officials have been complimentary about New Zealand's contributions to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. New Zealand retains a close bi-lateral defence relationship with Australia.

While you've been commended for your efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, does USA care so much as to compete in war games or anything of that nature with NZ?

I think it was actually the 80s...

Nicely, maybe, but military ties are still limited.



While you've been commended for your efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, does USA care so much as to compete in war games or anything of that nature with NZ?

yes?

Te Kaha and Endevour have just returned from 2 months in North America
First - the Canadian navy review and then to USA for visits to San Fran and defence manouvers with USA Navy

Your comments are starting to appear lame

So you're trying to tell me that everything is peachy between the US and NZ? Lol, okay. I mean, NZ is vital to any and all future wars in the Pacific.

So you're trying to tell me that everything is peachy between the US and NZ? Lol, okay. I mean, NZ is vital to any and all future wars in the Pacific.

LOL can some one please check if there are any lights on in Brisbane ..or your just a sorry inbred ass that needs hallucinogenic drugs (Dimethyltryptamine)to ...LOL!:lol:

So you're trying to tell me that everything is peachy between the US and NZ? Lol, okay. I mean, NZ is vital to any and all future wars in the Pacific.
Oh please.
NZ plays a role in it's region, with participation in multinational operations.
That would seem to be a very appropriate role for a small Pacific nation

Bahahahaa, war in the pacific......I laugh at your nerdynees Dimethyltryptamine. Someone needs a girlfriend i think. America has described the Nuclear issue as an old relic, and we are once again firm allies. America is actually applauding our stance on the issue, being invited to nuclear summits purely on our long standing policy - why else would we be invited when we do not have any.

Yes, it is vital that all our equipment is kept up to standard, and we have the equipment to function properly for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid.... we could even do with a small air combat force to aid peacekeeping. We do not however, need to prepare for all out war.

I dont know why, but there seem to be a lot of "END OF THE WORLD" supporters out there, mostly nerds who watch too much 2012, The Day after tomorrow, Armageddon, War of the Worlds and Independence Day type movies, I say to you all GET A LIFE.

Bahahahaa, war in the pacific......I laugh at your nerdynees Dimethyltryptamine. Someone needs a girlfriend i think. America has described the Nuclear issue as an old relic, and we are once again firm allies. America is actually applauding our stance on the issue, being invited to nuclear summits purely on our long standing policy - why else would we be invited when we do not have any.

Yes, it is vital that all our equipment is kept up to standard, and we have the equipment to function properly for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid.... we could even do with a small air combat force to aid peacekeeping. We do not however, need to prepare for all out war.

I dont know why, but there seem to be a lot of "END OF THE WORLD" supporters out there, mostly nerds who watch too much 2012, The Day after tomorrow, Armageddon, War of the Worlds and Independence Day type movies, I say to you all GET A LIFE.

Cheers ..thought I was the only kiwi on this forum...my god there scary! and sad!

and by the way...if anyone is cuddling up to America - its Australia, not NZ. Im proud we had the balls to say "NO" to America. Because of the age we live in, we can. America wont "not" help us if we need it, it is a relic and they respect us for it now.

Brisbane, Australia -after New Zealand - China and America combined forces and invaded - - theres my dream. :lol:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/files/2010/01/end-of-the-world-2.jpg

And someone said my comments 'appear lame'...

Bahahahaa, war in the pacific......I laugh at your nerdynees Dimethyltryptamine. Someone needs a girlfriend i think. America has described the Nuclear issue as an old relic, and we are once again firm allies. America is actually applauding our stance on the issue, being invited to nuclear summits purely on our long standing policy - why else would we be invited when we do not have any.

Yes, it is vital that all our equipment is kept up to standard, and we have the equipment to function properly for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid.... we could even do with a small air combat force to aid peacekeeping. We do not however, need to prepare for all out war.

I dont know why, but there seem to be a lot of "END OF THE WORLD" supporters out there, mostly nerds who watch too much 2012, The Day after tomorrow, Armageddon, War of the Worlds and Independence Day type movies, I say to you all GET A LIFE.

How is a potential war in the Pacific nerdy at all? I'm no nerdy person, but is it totally unreasonable to think (and heaven forbid) that in future there may be a war that takes place in the Pacific?

I really don't care about NZ being dropped by the US from ANZUS. Though I don't think they would ever applaud your stance (unless you have a news article to prove otherwise...)

How is anything I said at all relative to the 'end of the world'?

And someone said my comments 'appear lame'...



How is a potential war in the Pacific nerdy at all? I'm no nerdy person, but is it totally unreasonable to think (and heaven forbid) that in future there may be a war that takes place in the Pacific?

I really don't care about NZ being dropped by the US from ANZUS. Though I don't think they would ever applaud your stance (unless you have a news article to prove otherwise...)

How is anything I said at all relative to the 'end of the world'?

If you dont care ..why on earth are you being a pest on our forum...please move on

..... I rest my case on your erm.....nerdyness. This is New Zealand, we dont go running around like our heads are chopped off, worrying about a war in the pacific.

The fact remains that Australia is much more likely to be invaded than us. And if Australia is filled with people like you, I will sit back and laugh.

Go see a shrink or find a bunch of people who actually care about what you have to say. Unfortunately as you are obviously Australian venting your concerns on New Zealand forum, you wont find much support here.

What kind of person goes by the name Dimethyltryptamine anyway?

NERD!

..... I rest my case on your erm.....nerdyness. This is New Zealand, we dont go running around like our heads are chopped off, worrying about a war in the pacific.

The fact remains that Australia is much more likely to be invaded than us. And if Australia is filled with people like you, I will sit back and laugh.

Go see a shrink or find a bunch of people who actually care about what you have to say. Unfortunately as you are obviously Australian venting your concerns on New Zealand forum, you wont find much support here.

What kind of person goes by the name Dimethyltryptamine anyway?

NERD!

Someone who particularly likes drugs. ;)

..... I rest my case on your erm.....nerdyness. This is New Zealand, we dont go running around like our heads are chopped off, worrying about a war in the pacific.

The fact remains that Australia is much more likely to be invaded than us. And if Australia is filled with people like you, I will sit back and laugh.

Go see a shrink or find a bunch of people who actually care about what you have to say. Unfortunately as you are obviously Australian venting your concerns on New Zealand forum, you wont find much support here.

What kind of person goes by the name Dimethyltryptamine anyway?

NERD!

I don't even know where to start with that post. I also didn't know BSD moved to Napier.

take the hint, sod off mate.

:lol:

Napierman. Dimethyltryptamine and CapitolOz are just doing a little dick stroking so don't get too worked up about it.

Australians. prob dont really have enough to stroke, and thats all they can do by the sound of it. :chill:

Man , this is absolutely hilarious.
I luv it when supposedly rational adults very quickly end up hurling personal abuse that's meant to pass for sensible debate & discussion.
Wow , the level of oversensitivity in here is astounding.
I read somewhere this phenomenon is known as " cultural cringe".
Keep it up - especially Easty - luv your sense of personal affront.
Oh & Napier posting pictures of Brisbane after a nuclear holocaust - letting out all that deep seated anger very creatively.
Dimethyltryptamine ; what exactly does "BSD" stand for?? Hopefully something personally antagonistic no doubt.
Keep it up fellas. Very entertaining.

im no adult lol.... and Im an artist.

and.... NZ represent.....cant let those :crazy:aussies:crazy: take control of our forum :lol:

http://www.cdd.co.nz/nz_flag.jpg

There's nothing wrong with Aussies popping into kiwiscrapers in my opinion (I would expect to be able to do the same on Ozscrapers). Kiwiscrapers is part of Ozscrapers afterall.

still....
KWIKAAS, someone with good common sense. maybe im a bit anti Australian lol.....

There's nothing wrong with Aussies popping into kiwiscrapers in my opinion (I would expect to be able to do the same on Ozscrapers). Kiwiscrapers is part of Ozscrapers afterall.

I thought New Zealand and Australia were one country anyway. ;););)

^^ dont get me started :ohno:

^^ dont get me started :ohno:

I think you'll find I might be pulling peoples legs a wee bit. ;)

:)

Lot's of pulling, stroking and biting going on today ;)

Lot's of pulling, stroking and biting going on today ;)

You make Kiwiscrapers sound like a cheap porno, Kaas. I'm extra offended! :(

^^
did I forget bitch slapping? ;)

Btw. For the sake of comparison I looked up Ierland's military.
If you think NZ isn't much chop you should take a look there.

overshadowed by greatbritain, and are part of the EU so defense is sorted.

I think I'm on the side of the Kiwi's in this thread.

It's nice to have an army - but the world's a different place to what it was when actual invasion was a threat. Smarter to concentrate on other areas that are affecting both Australia and New Zealand - like cyber hacking by foreign governments. New Zealand doesn't need an enormous, over funded army. Not when there's more important things to spend money on, like bringing Auckland's train system up-to-scratch.

NZ should be more worried about Chinese (etc.) spies stealing trade secrets and technology as opposed to an all-out war. The same goes for Australia.

And I'm surprised that New Zealand didn't have a bit more of a field day over the story regarding Australia using fake passports for our spy agencies. Obviously Wellington wouldn't have been in the position to put up much of a fight, but surely the Kiwi media should have picked up on it a bit more...

^probably didn't bother because they figure anyone in the rest of the world thinks we're the same country anyway.

Also I think Napierman should say sorry to Dimethelydreythohomeneodrine, he was rather unwelcoming.

The only Australian member not welcome here is BobDaBuilder. Because he hates us.

I thought New Zealand and Australia were one country anyway. ;););)

We should have been!

Anyway moving on......

NZ should be more worried about Chinese (etc.) spies stealing trade secrets and technology as opposed to an all-out war.

True...the state of our non existant cyber defence..take for instance that turkish nerd who hacked into a govt web site.
What trade secrets we may have are probably already long gone

Btw. For the sake of comparison I looked up Ierland's military.
If you think NZ isn't much chop you should take a look there.
Ireland is a neutral state. NZ is in a two-way alliance with australia, and as such, it has an obligation to contribute to the security of australia, not just itself, a point that seems to be lost on too many.


Meanwhile, several pages ago...
Hangman.. the new m777 hows it been taken by the field gunners....are they liking it?
Final orders were still being finalised in june, so the australian army hasnt got theirs yet. The yanks and canadians have been using them in afghanistan and iraq, and by all accounts love them to bits, theyve been ordering extra.

Obligations will always be there mate.....
The Canadians did some merry he'll in Afgan with the M777
ex marine gunnery group on trial
Deadly if combined with guided ordanance
certainly ideal replacement for existing 155 mm

But looking at your last paragraph, I am assuming your issue is not with our level of committment, but rather the quality? That's a completely different argument.

Nope. Our commitment is a function of our quality and vice versa.

NZ is in a luxury position. America keeps open the global trade lanes, just as Britain did before them, just as Rome did in the ancient world. Plus, we freeload off Australia's strength in the South Pacific.

It's not a question of quality, but of policy, that is, philosophy. I don't expect most Kiwi's to get this. They live in a vacuum.

Twenty years from now, maybe ten, you'll see Chinese aircraft carrier groups probing our waters. Invasion? Probably not. But exerting their power? Forcing compliance? Sure. And then all the isolationist-pacifist idiots who thought that aggression was an historical anomaly will be wondering what the hell is going on.

^^ actually I agree now i think. At the moment, with America we have the status quo in our favor, but as soon as the balance of power in the pacific shifts, and new and different policies are in force, we may see the wrong end of a stick. China is a wee way of yet, but will be a world superpower.

I am disappointed about our airforce...... featured on Campbell Live tonight.
17 Skyhawkes unable to be sold.

Costing us taxpayers millions for upkeep, even though not in service.

too old to be any good, and any good technology in the jets are being stripped due to our military secrets. (didn't know we had any).

I vote to use the parts, and create our own or a new jet fighter fleet - even though i know it would cost billions....

But they are speaking now of giving them away to museums and such :ohno:

--

^^
Should China develop the capability to wage (conventional) war on far flung nations it will be decades in the making. Plenty of time to reassess NZ's military should China start taking an agressive stance to Australia or NZ however inlikely. I would imagine Taiwan would be occupying the imaginations of Chinese military strategists for years to come.

NZ developing a home grown fighter? :lol:

I believe that a reasonably decent deterrent force and Effective Cyber Defence Systems are where Australia needs to look on the future,

In regards to New Zealand, I think you guys are ok with the way things are now besides outdated equipment, but I do think every Developed Country in the 21st century needs a decent Cyber defence network,so maybe thats what NZ can focus on,being the Cyber attack dog lol

I believe that a reasonably decent deterrent force and Effective Cyber Defence Systems are where Australia needs to look on the future,

In regards to New Zealand, I think you guys are ok with the way things are now besides outdated equipment, but I do think every Developed Country in the 21st century needs a decent Cyber defence network,so maybe thats what NZ can focus on,being the Cyber attack dog lol

A side from the hercule original airframes and come 2011 with the reciept of the NH90
Its not outdated equipment ( remember your M113'S ARE 40 YEARS OLD)
Its just the a mix of right and wrong equipment for post 911. My thoughts are not enough of the right equipment.
Cyber defence is with the NIS not with the armed forces.
As with China..unfortunatly we ( AU and NZ ) are peas in the same pod.
Your wealth is based on feeding that countries industrial production...NZ feeds theirs mouths.
They look at both countries in the same light,Western outpost easily managed .
There wont be a war like WW2 .Both our countries are so reliant on China...apart from the odd political outburst regarding human rights.We are already 21st century pawns to the giant Panda.

Agreed, NZ really only has the Orions and Iroqois that are long in the tooth.

Also, why would China be interested in invading us? Resources? The world would have to be in a very desperate state for that to happen. Provided we keep a barebones military in most fields the expertise base should be there if we need later (pity about the air combat wing but really a waste of money) but in the meantime it's pointless worrying about being attacked by friendly nations.

Which we won't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

Aussie vs Emu LOL this So funny

It is when you consider the Aussies lost.

Ohakea 'hub' created in Defence reshuffle

Big changes are in store for the New Zealand Defence Force, as the Government looks to "reprioritise" spending due to the economic climate.

Defence Minister Wayne Mapp revealed the Defence White Paper in Auckland this morning.

for the whole paper: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/feature/defence+white+paper+2010

It is the first comprehensive review of the Defence Force in 13 years and provides a blueprint of the strategic and defence challenges for New Zealand over the next 25 years.

Dr Mapp said Defence Force resources would be redistributed to sustain and build front-line capabilities and new ways of doing business would be identified.

"We have addressed financial issues in detail. We must plan now to replace the strategic air transport and air surveillance fleets, and the naval combat force."

Rather than cutbacks, Dr Mapp said the defence budget would be reprioritised.

"This is necessary due to the increased cost that comes from introducing the new and upgraded capabilities, including $900 million worth of new helicopters, $500 million of new ships, and $600 million of upgraded Hercules and Orion aircraft."

Consolidating defence bases

As a result of this, the Government is looking at consolidating the Central North Island Defence 'hub' at Ohakea - making it a joint Airforce and Army base - which will mean moving the Linton base and reducing personnel at Waiouru. Woodbourne and Trentham bases would also be looked at.

"Much of the infrastructure is run down and does not meet current requirements," Dr Mapp said. "The costs in maintenance are high. We will be looking for new public/private partnerships to provide efficient facilities that will save money in the long term."

The Air Force, Navy and Army would also work together more closely, with IT and administration systems, training and logistics jobs done on a tri-service basis.

"The current Defence Transformation Plan has already reprioritised $100 million," Dr Mapp said. "The Value for Money project will identify a further $250 million (around 10 per cent of the Defence budget) to be reprioritised over the next five years."

Strategic outlook

The paper said "the next 25 years are likely to be more challenging than the 25 years just past" and in a "sometimes violent world there will be occasions when the use of military force is appropriate".

It said New Zealand would consider the use of military force in response to a direct threat to New Zealand and its territories, Australia, as part of collection action in support of a Pacific Island Forum member, as part of the country's commitment to the Five Power Defence Arrangements, or if requested by the United Nations.

The paper said the country's strategic outlook and security interests suggested the Defence Forces principal tasks for the next 25 years will remain as they have been, but potentially with "intensified demands".

"New Zealand and its associated states are highly unlikely to face a direct military threat over the next 25 years," the paper said. "But increased pressure on maritime resources and an increased risk of illegal migration are likely."

The United States was likely to remain the pre-eminent military power for the next 25 years, but its relative technological and military edge would diminish.

"Tensions related to the Korean peninsula, Taiwan and the South China Sea will continue, as will pressure points in south and Southeast Asia," the report said.

"Security structures in the Asia-Pacific region will continue to evolve. The Middle East will remain a region of instability."

While the South Pacific would be a focus, there also needed to be capability for credible contribution to stability in Asia, as well as further afield.

"It is proposed that the combat effectiveness, protection, sustainability, and mobility of land forces be improved, and that the critical enabling capabilities of long-range air and sea transport be maintained. These measures will allow the Defence Force to deploy more troops on overseas operations, and for longer."

Short range maritime patrol aircraft and satellite imagery were part of the proposed force structure, to enhance New Zealand's domestic and regional border and maritime resource protection capability.

The two Anzac frigates and transport aircraft would be replaced "at the end of their life".

The Defence Force would also "civilianise a significant number of posts currently filled by uniformed personnel not required to deploy operationally", enabling it to shift uniformed personnel to the front of the organisation.

Progress will be reviewed after five years.

- NZPA

Be interesting to see the impact on Palmy.

A few years back, I think some personnel were moved to Ohakea from other areas of the country and they chose to live in Palmy (about 20+kms away) rather than in the nearby town of Bulls. Increased demand for 4bdr housing.

Those who might move from Linton would be living in the city anyway and would stay put, and the incoming will probably choose Palmy also.

Be good for further growth. Weve been fairly stagnant at 80k for a while.....

What exactly are they expecting to get with $900 million? NH90's and A-109's are a good asset but I wouldn't think 8 of them would cost that much. Eurcopter Tigers maybe, like Australia?

I could think of better ways to spend $600 million instead of on those antique Hercules and Orion aircraft. Why not replace them with slightly smaller less expensive aircraft like naval variants of ATR's which would fit in with the "civilianization" of the army's other branches because the RNZAF could contract them out to Air Nelson because they have just been awarded the maintenance contract for Mt Cook Airlines' ATR-72s.

ATR-72MP
http://www.finmeccanica.it/IT/Common/images/prodotti/ATR_72_ASW.jpg
Cost per unit: USD$21 million
Can remain in flight for seven hours and has a combat radius of 260 nautical miles. Can also be equipped with torpedos.
Maximum range: 2,200km

Good idea or not?

Fairly good idea, but the range is well down on an Orion, you could have a two tier fleet, I'd buy 2-3 P8 Poseidon's which have the range to patrol the outer edges of our EEZ and 3-4 ATR's for the coastal patrol, these I'd also paint in Coastguard colours rather than Airforce colours. Same with the Protector Class IPV's and OPV's they aren't warships, they fulfill the Coastguard role far better than they do a Naval one so they should be painted accordingly.

I think the white paper on Balance is sound.

In particular is the continued upscale of our naval and maritime surveillance and defense

Behind the paper is in depth reviews including (by 2015)
1) Replacement by 2013/14 the Endeavour with a more robust vessel. One that will combine both replenishment and logistic support ( heli/troops/landing craft). I believe the navy has proposed is a ship of at least 12 -14,000 tons that can support deployment actions within a potential hostile environment.
2) Implement defensive sea and air armament of the OPV’S and introduce armor in critical areas of the ship ( I would say shrapnel blast/light ordinance only as the ships are already 1900 tons)
3) Replace the current Hydro/diving ships with a 3rd Armed vassal that can support OPV operations as required ( Hydro job to go to non navy dept i.e Niwa)
4) Arm the IPVS with at least a 25mm cannon
5) Up spec the Canterbury (what that would entail?)
6) Upgrade Frigates
Over lay this with our own sat surveillance and improved maritime patrol capabilities
That would leave the navy and maritime defense in its best state …period…as it really has been run down for 30 years or so

I could think of better ways to spend $600 million instead of on those antique Hercules and Orion aircraft. Why not replace them with slightly smaller less expensive aircraft like naval variants of ATR's

Replacing the C130s with ATRs would be a huge downgrade in Capacity,

You would lose the ability to get to OZ and the Pacific Islands,+ any real hope of air lifting disaster aid anywhere.

I think the likely replace for the Hercs will be ... more Hercs, the 130J- super Herc appears to tick all the boxes, - unless we strike oil , when we might look at Airbus A400m, or Boeing Globemaster c-17s

I think the white paper on Balance is sound.

In particular is the continued upscale of our naval and maritime surveillance and defense

Behind the paper is in depth reviews including (by 2015)
1) Replacement by 2013/14 the Endeavour with a more robust vessel. One that will combine both replenishment and logistic support ( heli/troops/landing craft). I believe the navy has proposed is a ship of at least 12 -14,000 tons that can support deployment actions within a potential hostile environment.
2) Implement defensive sea and air armament of the OPV’S and introduce armor in critical areas of the ship ( I would say shrapnel blast/light ordinance only as the ships are already 1900 tons)
3) Replace the current Hydro/diving ships with a 3rd Armed vassal that can support OPV operations as required ( Hydro job to go to non navy dept i.e Niwa)
4) Arm the IPVS with at least a 25mm cannon
5) Up spec the Canterbury (what that would entail?)
6) Upgrade Frigates
Over lay this with our own sat surveillance and improved maritime patrol capabilities
That would leave the navy and maritime defense in its best state …period…as it really has been run down for 30 years or so

http://i55.tinypic.com/dgqv4.jpg
The Prometheus (A-374) is a naval replenishment and logistic support ship built for the Hellenic Navy at the Eleusis Naval Shipyard under licence from the Italian Fincantieri - Cantieri Navali Italiani S.p.A. shipbuilding company.
WEAPONS
-1 CIWS Vulcan Phalanx Mk 15 Mod 12, 20 mm.
-4 Rheinmetall, 20 mm.
-2 MG M2 .5 in, 6 M1919 0.30 in, 2 MG -3, 7.62 mm
-Surface search radar: Raytheon SPS -10 D freq. G.
-True motion radar: two GEM LD -1825 freq. I.
-One 15 ton helicopter. The helicopter facilities give the ship the capability to re-supply warships by vertical replenishment (VERTREP).
Two ships can be replenished at the same time using four Replenishment at Sea/ Fuel at Sea (RAS/FAS) stations on two frames.

Fairly good idea, but the range is well down on an Orion, you could have a two tier fleet, I'd buy 2-3 P8 Poseidon's which have the range to patrol the outer edges of our EEZ and 3-4 ATR's for the coastal patrol, these I'd also paint in Coastguard colours rather than Airforce colours. Same with the Protector Class IPV's and OPV's they aren't warships, they fulfill the Coastguard role far better than they do a Naval one so they should be painted accordingly.

I agree. But our Orions are really getting on in the years and there will be a time where it just won't be feasible to keep them in service. The ATR's were proposed because they were possibly cheaper than refurbishing old aircraft and they could be serviced by civilian companies. Off topic question: who was the Nelson company that got the contract to maintain ANZ's ATR's? Because I thought if we had ATR's in the fleet, they could be serviced here as we have the facilities to do so.

Replacing the C130s with ATRs would be a huge downgrade in Capacity,

You would lose the ability to get to OZ and the Pacific Islands,+ any real hope of air lifting disaster aid anywhere.

I think the likely replace for the Hercs will be ... more Hercs, the 130J- super Herc appears to tick all the boxes, - unless we strike oil , when we might look at Airbus A400m, or Boeing Globemaster c-17s

I was meaning replacing (or complementing) the Orions with ATR's as it would be pruchasing new aircraft for a similar price of a refurbished aircraft. I remember hearing that the Air Force had already considered the A400M as a likely replacement for the C-130.

5) Up spec the Canterbury (what that would entail?)

Larger onboard helicopter facilities (NH90) or better engines.

^^
Yes, NZ appears to be redeveloping ties with the USA. That doesn't change the fact that Australia is the US's bitch. Nor does it change the fact that Australia has cooperated with the USA much more closely in recent years that NZ.

Personally, I can see nothing good out of military cooperation with the USA.

Coming at you fast;

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/clinton-wraps-up-visit-praises-cantabs-3880740

Still stuck in an early '80s time warp?
I just luv the way Hillary Clinton got a "standing ovation".
We'll enjoy her company over here shortly.

What exactly are they expecting to get with $900 million? NH90's and A-109's are a good asset but I wouldn't think 8 of them would cost that much. Eurcopter Tigers maybe, like Australia?

I'm not certain how nz calculates their purchases but $900m sounds like the through-life cost as opposed to fly-away cost, which would be more like $300m. Australia usually does it this way, which is why the sale of 24 super hornets at ~$80m a pop is always quoted as $6b.

And the nzdf hangs onto its equipment longer than most, which is probably why it sounds so high.

STOP PRESS: It has just been confirmed that the RNZAF will return to having a fighter wing...

http://www.crashsiteorkney.com/userimages/sopwith_camel_1stproto_500.jpg

With what? Kites? Seagulls? We haven't got anything that would constitute a modern fighter.


Unless they want to bring back the SkyHawks.

I'm not certain how nz calculates their purchases but $900m sounds like the through-life cost as opposed to fly-away cost, which would be more like $300m. Australia usually does it this way, which is why the sale of 24 super hornets at ~$80m a pop is always quoted as $6b.

And the nzdf hangs onto its equipment longer than most, which is probably why it sounds so high.

Fly away is closer to $600 mil for the NH90, 8@ 35 m Euro= $560mil, The total price in $771 mil
http://www.airforce.mil.nz/projects/nh90/nh90-helicopter.htm
The total cost of eight NH90s and the full support and logistics package is $771million. The support and logistics costs represent over a third of this total. The budget for the helicopter project has been allocated through the ten-year Defence Long Term Development Plan.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_643_55/ai_n28781042/
The fly-away-price (including taxes but no spares, ground equipment or training) for the German Army NH90 now stands at DM38.29 million, with the intended German Navy version priced at DM55.8 million.

My bad, i worked out the flyaway cost in aussie dollars. Was probably a bit low anyway at A$40m each but consistent unit costs are hard to come by.

STOP PRESS: It has just been confirmed that the RNZAF will return to having a fighter wing...

http://www.crashsiteorkney.com/userimages/sopwith_camel_1stproto_500.jpg

Where exactly did you get this information?

Where exactly did you get this information?

^^
He's being facetious

However the white paper does not spell out the return of the Amerechii Trainers...

^^
He's being facetious

However the white paper does not spell out the return of the Amerechii Trainers...

Oh right. Bring back the Aermacchis? Hell yes. We could even use them as a light ground attack aircraft, which the MB-339 is perfectly capable and even designed to do.

of course exactly what ground they would attack i have no idea.

there are certain parts of lower hutt which might suffice...

of course exactly what ground they would attack i have no idea.

there are certain parts of lower hutt which might suffice...

^^
well - better to fly them than keep in storage.
However I cant disagree on your proposed action:)

of course exactly what ground they would attack i have no idea.

Send them to Afghanistan. Saves us calling in air support from the Americans or British when the Taliban decide to take a few pot shots at us. It's why we had those Aussie jets during a recent exercise.

Really could have done with those F-16's a while back.

Upgraded Orions due back

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4921007/Upgraded-Orions-due-back

The first of the Royal New Zealand Air Force's refurbished Orion patrol aircraft is due back in Auckland today after a multi-million dollar upgrade which should keep the aircraft in the air for another 15 years.

The six Orions, now 46 years old, are getting new surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation and communication systems at a cost of $373 million. The upgrades will allow the air force to extend the Orions' role far wider than their traditional maritime surveillance.

The first upgraded Orion has been renamed as a P-3K2 and is due to touch down at the Whenuapai air base in Auckland today.

The air force said the upgrade was a significant milestone and a ``quantum leap forward in technology''.

It would improve the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability during military operations or other missions supporting other Government agencies.

The air force said the upgraded gear in the Orions would introduce a significant and fundamental change in the operation of the Orion to include overland operations as well as its traditional maritime operations.

Instead of being a maritime patrol force it would be known as an Airborne Surveillance and Response Force.

The modifications included upgraded communications, navigation, surveillance and data management systems.

The Orions would have a ``glass flight deck'' and the package included a flight deck trainer, a crew trainer, system and software testing and integration laboratories and flight planning systems.

The first Orion was upgraded in Greenville, Texas, and the other five would be done at the Safe Air NZ plant at Woodbourne, Blenheim.

The Government earlier said the fleet was critical to meeting its defence policies and other roles, including the surveillance of New Zealand's exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

However, obsolete gear on the aircraft limited surveillance flights and other missions because they were repeatedly breaking down.

The air force was also facing increasing difficulties meetings its commitments to Australia and Five Power Defence Partners because of the obsolescence of the Orions, the Government said.

The first five Orions were delivered in 1965 and a sixth was bought second hand in 1985.

On long missions they could shut down two engines and stay in the air for more than 15 hours.

The Orions have been widely used on search and rescue missions around New Zealand's search and rescue zone, the largest in the world, and on surveillance flights around the world's fourth largest EEZ.

The aircraft had a systems upgrade about 30 years ago and new wings were fitted 11 years ago.