Ok, couldn't find the original so decided to start it a fresh.

$1b of new hardware on military wishlist (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4234496a11.html)

The Defence Force has unveiled an ambitious $1 billion shopping list for more ships, planes, a new fleet of armoured trucks and new weapons over the next decade.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/images/332792.jpg
TROOP MOVER: The Airbus A400M, one of the planes being considered to replace the C130s, is on the Defence Force's wishlist.

The proposals could add $1 billion to the extra $1.3 billion committed to new military hardware under the 2002-2012 long-term defence plan.

Most of that has or is being spent on new ships, helicopters, aircraft upgrades and army equipment ordered or due to come into service in the next five years.

But tentative plans for more expensive acquisitions - beyond what has already been approved - were outlined at a Defence Industry forum in Wellington.

But Defence Minister Phil Goff says the Government is yet to commit to the plan.

The navy, which will have seven new ships by next year and is also getting $500 million to upgrade its two Anzac frigates, has signalled it needs to replace its tanker, the Endeavour and the Manawanui dive support ship by about 2016.

The air force wants to buy a new fleet of transport aircraft to replace its old C-130 Hercules in about 10 years time.

Defence sources suggest new aircraft could cost between $500 million and $1 billion.

That is on top of the $900 million being spent on new helicopters, $400 million on modernising the P3 Orion patrol aircraft and the estimated $330 million to be spent on Ohakea air base.

The army has begun planning to replace its trucks at an estimated $500 million.

Drawing on the experience of forces now operating in Afghanistan army planners say its new trucks will need to be fitted with armoured cabs.

The army has a long list of "minor" projects under way including the purchase of grenade machine guns to give the infantry more firepower, replace its light machine guns, upgrade its standard-issue Steyr infantry rifles and purchase combat shotguns.

It is also planning to equip its infantry with unmanned aerial vehicles - small aircraft fitted with cameras and other sensors.

Assistant chief of general staff Phil Collett added that the army was also working on a "soldier modernisation programme" to give all soldiers world class clothing, packs, personal protection, night vision and communication equipment.

A sophisticated $83 million intelligence, reconnaissance and communications system - designed to give commanders and troops much more information about their location, the position of other forces and likely threats - is also on the army's shopping list in the next five years.

Assistant chief of navy Captain Fred Keating outlined the navy's plans for upgrading its two frigates. They are presently being fitted with new mini-Typhoon automatic guns to give them protection against fast inshore attack craft.

Its Phalanx gatling guns, designed as a last line of defence against missile attack, are also being upgraded and modified at a cost of $25 million to enable them to hit surface targets.

From 2012 the navy is set to begin a $434 million programme to upgrade combat systems on the ships.

Thanks Kane, it's just a mater of time before they start getting an aircombat capability. It is a start, but as I have discussed earlier a military union with Australia would be a very sensible move.:lol:

^^^
I wouldnt hold my breath for a return of an air combat unit.

Our millitary is a disgrace.

^^
why?

Because our equipment is all outdated. It's so old that they probably sell them in antique stores in America. We don't take part in enough wars either, we need to make sure our troops see more combat.

^^
Oh goodness.
I suppose we could invade Tonga for practice:nuts:

Why not we invaded Samoa in 1915? ^^

Our millitary is a disgrace.

Another beauty. Hardware aside the NZ military is a highly professional and exceptionally well trained force with deservedly high regard internationally. Whilst I'm for targeted increases in military expenditure exactly what kind of force do you suggest a nation with a whopping 4 million to field?

From what I have read it is a little better than it has been. There is no doubt that there will be a major rethink in regards to defence spending in the next decade. As the cold war between China and the U.S. esculates, it is going to be necessary. :lol:

We have quite an importance around the Antarctic, we could claim the entire continent as our own, put a giant nuclear weapon's facility on Scott Base and wary every other nation on Earth shall be, muhahahaha

Because our equipment is all outdated. It's so old that they probably sell them in antique stores in America. We don't take part in enough wars either, we need to make sure our troops see more combat.

Coining some corkers for such a new member aren't you?!

#1. I'm ashamed of my nation for getting involved in a war that it didn't need to.
#2. Kudos to the Kiwis for only having a peacekeeping force. Far better resembles what NZ stands for.

Bit of a far cry from when the Skyhawks used to streak over:lol:

http://host2.piction.com/otago/ump.secure_uma?surl=956283190ZZZQJFURQWOHH&version=9&enc=9D20901F9458B6AA1E6B011768061182B7F8F930F4C0D283CF0DD0B07429F82DCA48B78AABD568282FF3DEAC914343AACB5C93A63B117957B1081D9EDEE47158

They should buy at least two C-17's as well.Production of these is due to stop in 2009.Maybe the Govt might be lucky enuff to secure a good deal on an "end of line" order.
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i29/blairboy_2006/copy_c17.jpg

We need a bigger and better army. We should make sure New Zealand is a country that people don't fuck with. We should have sent some troops to the Pitcairn Islands to deal with the 'funny business' that goes on there!

:lol::lol:Haha Classic man - I'm guessing your the type of guy who would use a flame thrower to kill a vampire when a wooden stack would have sufficed.:lol::lol:

Why use a flamethrower when you can use cluster bombs, or better yet, tactical nukes?

Upping the ante ah! I'll see your tactical nukes with high yield (20MT) Strategic nukes :).

What happened to holy water pistols?

The only way to be absolutely sure is to drop a 500 megaton asteroid on them - Extinction Event! Could use one on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan - the PC way of getting rid of any and all problems :).

...

The only way to be absolutely sure is to drop a 500 megaton asteroid on them - Extinction Event! Could use one on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan - the PC way of getting rid of any and all problems :).
LOL! Nothing like an ELE to sort things out eh? :lol: :nuts:

I believe New Zealand should merge its military with Australia to form a combined ANZAC military force. Now that Australia has a new government and our relationship is becoming more congruent this is something which really could be workable.

Absolutely not mate. Sovereign states should not 'merge' their military. Hate to make comparisons here but that didnt help in what was once called Yugoslavia. Merge is the wrong word anyway- it would be that NZ would loose its autonomy.

Yep currently the governments are similar. Yet Australia still has a nuclear power plant, and is still seen as a US lackey in the eyes of those we are meant to 'fear'. NZ's current spending on the military would be syphoned off by Australia to patrol its northern border with Indonesia anyway. How does that help us? And then lets say in 15 years time when Australia is led by a right leaning govt and NZ's is left what say would we have when our troops have to fight in Iraq mach 3?

Joint exercises yep, all ok with that. Sharing intelligence yes to that as well. Top level talks of course. Nothing else but.

Yugoslavia is a totally different set of circumstances. Australia and New Zealand are so intertwined and becoming increasingly more so. The amount of money being spent on defence in New Zealand is very small, so much so that our current defence force has been erroded and it will require several billion dollars to get it to a respectable level. As for Australia syphoning off our share of the defence budget on defending the northern tip from Indonesia, that is definetly is not a waste of resources. Indonesia poses just as much of a threat to New Zealand as it does to Australia. There may still be some cultural hurdles between our two countries which are pretty minute, I feel this is the direction we are heading toward. This would be a significant and symbolic step for our two nations.:)

Australia shares no border with Indonesia - or anyone for that matter.

Was that even said?

Yes.

Absolutely not mate. Sovereign states should not 'merge' their military. Hate to make comparisons here but that didnt help in what was once called Yugoslavia. Merge is the wrong word anyway- it would be that NZ would loose its autonomy.

Yep currently the governments are similar. Yet Australia still has a nuclear power plant, and is still seen as a US lackey in the eyes of those we are meant to 'fear'. NZ's current spending on the military would be syphoned off by Australia to patrol its northern border with Indonesia anyway. How does that help us? And then lets say in 15 years time when Australia is led by a right leaning govt and NZ's is left what say would we have when our troops have to fight in Iraq mach 3?

Joint exercises yep, all ok with that. Sharing intelligence yes to that as well. Top level talks of course. Nothing else but.

It just seems to me that merging our military with Australia is a smart way to pool our resources together. New Zealand has some of the best trained military personnel in the world sadly they are operating on a shoestring. Given the opportunity to be part of a much larger ANZAC force would give them access to far better equipment. Sure New Zealand would be a much smaller partner in this arrangement, but the opportunity this could give young people in New Zealand would be huge. At the moment our region is pretty peaceful although Indonesia and China loom as possible threats in the future. New Zealand's contribution to such an arrangement would be ammence in terms of the quality training our present military receive. New Zealand's proud military history, professionalism and high standards could really add something to the ADF.

Yes.

Thus the border is shared by sea. It is a border nonetheless.

reform the ANZAC's?

would be a great day in history when that happens! :)

Im fairly certain there'll be a change of government in New Zealand this year anyway. Lets see if the Nationals keep their promise and fund our military to decent levels again. I'm not overly impressed with the way Labor has let things slide, but have faith that a part of the budget surplus we are sitting on could go into giving youngster faith in joining the NZ military forces. Ive noticed that the army has a shitload of positions available across the board.

NZ's 'bag' lies in peace keeping. They do a fantastic job- and are spoken of very highly by my family in Croatia for the work done there. We dont need to send out guys to be based at Tindall looking out for Indonesian fishing boats.

Once again though. Definately no merging/absorbing/take over, whatever you call it of armed forces. I mean, has that ever happened between two sovereign nations? Besides maybe Switzerland supplying the Vatican?

It just seems to me that merging our military with Australia is a smart way to pool our resources together. New Zealand has some of the best trained military personnel in the world sadly they are operating on a shoestring. Given the opportunity to be part of a much larger ANZAC force would give them access to far better equipment. Sure New Zealand would be a much smaller partner in this arrangement, but the opportunity this could give young people in New Zealand would be huge. At the moment our region is pretty peaceful although Indonesia and China loom as possible threats in the future. New Zealand's contribution to such an arrangement would be ammence in terms of the quality training our present military receive. New Zealand's proud military history, professionalism and high standards could really add something to the ADF.

nah man... that misses the point. Soveriegnty and autonomy are ridiculously important and these issues are five star at military level. Dont get me wrong, im all for closer relations defence wise, but the NZ military should never have decisions made for it by Aus (which would be the case of a merger), decisions for NZ should only be made from and by NZ! What you are suggesting, we may as well become the seventh state! Thats what it boils down to. If you want to be australian move there...

The NZ military is very well respected... until it comes to equipment that is. They are just talking about replacing the hercules in 'ten years time'? They should have been replaced in the 1980's!!! So should have the skyhawks! Having 2 frigates is a waste of money too... we need at least four (and in the 1980's the navy was saying it needed at least 6 to actually meet requirements of a modern SMALL navy) or none at all. NZ may be small, but even doubling what we have would still see us with a piddly military, basically it needs to be kept in perspective.

Im not a man of war and dont want to see NZ heading off into one anytime soon but having a small modern navy, airforce and army would ensure we play our part and plus it wouldnt hurt to have some kick arse gear!!! The NZ military is a frickin joke.

As for Australia syphoning off our share of the defence budget on defending the northern tip from Indonesia, that is definetly is not a waste of resources. Indonesia poses just as much of a threat to New Zealand as it does to Australia. There may still be some cultural hurdles between our two countries which are pretty minute, I feel this is the direction we are heading toward. This would be a significant and symbolic step for our two nations.:)

That's a gross misrepresentation of Indonesian military capabilities and a misconception that trades on the old 'their a different colour and have a funny god' chestnut. As it stands Australia is the only country in the region with a military geared for external force projection, Indonesia's military is geared towards internal security. Should there be any intention by Indonesia (god knows why they would, can anyone make even a slightly decent argument on how they could possibly end up better off? They ain't crazy) to mess with oz, or us then they would need a substantial retooling. The ozzies, being solidly allied with the U.S. need regional justifications for force projection military platforms and exaggerate local threats, but i would argue the intention has always been to compliment American military actions.

This little point alone highlights why NZ, which has an independent foreign policy, should remain independent in terms of military capability. As for China, I would argue that the only possible way they would even consider aggression on either NZ or OZ is if they somehow managed to develop first strike capability. - the ability to launch nuclear weapons with a high probability of not suffering a counter strike. That ain't going to happen.

:2cents:

This week I have discovered about Anzac Day. I am meant to be studying but am watching the Commeration on tv. All of the Ambassadors are giving flowers in the memorial. I am waiting for Vietnamese ambassador. Have even seen the Iran and American government official. Military remembering days are very big propoganda at home. We would all have our flags ready to waive. On Wednesday 30 April is our Ngày Chiến thắng Ngày Thống nhất which means reunification or victory day. We have festivals across the country. Lots of pictures of Hồ Chí Minh. :ohno:

I think I will stop watching now. The church singing is making me sleep. I need to stay awake for studying.

Anzac is a very important day in both Australia and New Zealand. In Australia it is a very patriotic day, even more so than New Zealand. This really surprises me considering New Zealand's contribution to both World Wars was significantly higher than Australia, when you take into a account our smaller size. An interesting fact is that while Australia had 98 vcs awarded, New Zealand has 23 awarded to 22 men. This doesn't include servicemen who served in the Australian forces in World War 1, at least 2 were awarded vcs. New Zealand' contribution to the Battle of Britain can only be described as immense. Sir Reginal Park, born in Thames and educated at Otago Boys High School was responsible for London's defence during the blitz. He was described by a war minister at the time as the one man who single handedly was responsible for saving England and probably the world. A large proportion of airman were kiwis, as well as three who were successful fighter aces. In terms of military casualties, New Zealand suffered the second highest casualty rate of World War 2 after Russia. When I think how proud I am of being a New Zealander these facts come to mind. Very sad how they are so often overlooked.

NZ certainly contributed alot to the allies efforts in both World Wars.
What does irritate me sometimes is the way the Gallipoli campaign has been pretty much taken into ownage by Australia and New Zealand.
You never hear a word about the 10,000 French and Senegalese that died and the 17,000 wounded in the campaign(which is as many as all Anzac dead combined). The Britsh lost over 21,000 lives and 52,000 wounded. Then of course you have the Turkish casualties which were by far the highest.
Gallipoli is offen portrayed as the brave ANZACs being sent to the slaughter by arrogant British officers (see the film Gallipoli = total nonsense).

It's strange that it happens here in general with people being completely oblivious to the actual percentage losses experienced by countries involved in both WW1 and WW2... But I digress.

Rememberance shouldn't be about one nation in particular EVER, it should be about all involved: axis/ally or triple entente/central powers - everyone. It is a time for sad reflection at the losses experienced by all and a pledge every year to never let the same happen again. Nationalism shouldn't ever enter the equation.

Having spent numerous Anzac Days in both countries one thing does surprise me. In NZ the Australian contribution is mentioned alot, news services here carry plenty of coverage from Australian correspondants in Sydney and Canberra. That kind of surprised me, in Australia unless you watched the ABC or SBS you could be forgiven for thinking that Australia was the only country involved in the Anzacs.

Anybody know the population of Russia during WW2. Im certain that their 23 million dead was still a massive percentage. I always think of Belgium as suffering plenty of casualties during the Great War especially, Anton do you know the figures there mate?

The losses incured by Australia and New Zealand are highly exadurated.

Here are some WW2 stats.
Deaths as a percentage of the population in 1939

Australia 0.57%
New Zealand 0.67%
U.K 0.94%
U.S 0.32%

Now let's get into the grit...
A few selected countries

Germany 10.47%
Poland 16.07%
USSR 13.71%
Latvia 11.38%
Lithuania 13.71%
Portugese Timor 11.00%
Greece 4.31%
Hungary 6.35%
Japan 3.75%
Yugoslavia 6.67%
Belgium 1.02%
Netherlands 2.32%

That figure would have been civilians and military. I would say the U.S.S.R. as it was called at the time had a population of 70-80 million.

^^
Yep. It's civilian and military.
The USSR had a population of 168,500,000 in 1939 and lost 23,100,000 lives. HUGE

Milan, that was what I was getting at. New Zealand hardly gets a mention on ANZAC day over here in Australia.

Thanks for confirming that. Russia has over 144,417,000 as of 2001, although it is significantly reduced because of the breakdown of the U.S.S.R.

Milan, that was what I was getting at. New Zealand hardly gets a mention on ANZAC day over here in Australia.

I hear you brother. No offence is meant by not giving credit to the Kiwi contribution. At the same time it is no excuse. I got a little overwhelmed by the "digger this, two up that, little Aussie battler" tripe that you hear so much. I remember Anzac Day 1999, the Courier Mail had a front page pic of a soldier at Gallipoli with the Kiwi and Aussie flags behind him fluttering away in a big breeze. The caption read something like 'Australian soldier in front of Australian flags'. I think its in grade one we learn the difference between the two flags.

Besides, when it comes to commemorating battles or war dead I always feel very uncomfortable. My country did terrible things in WW2 which alot of my compatriots prefer to forget about and focus just on the atrocities paid to us in the 90s.

Hey Luka Im not sure if i can answer your question. My oldies never really mentioned the second world war other than i lost a few great uncles and a great aunt. That was bad of course on its own but made worse because they were only just getting over the first world war. Near to our families home is a a place called Ypres. It was totally annihilated and rebuilt at great cost. I think its mentioned often in Belgium.

Its good to have the day off on Anzac Day. Everyone enjoys a public holiday but it is a good idea for the nation to reflect- even if it feels a little contrived and forced.

The losses incured by Australia and New Zealand are highly exadurated.

Here are some WW2 stats.
Deaths as a percentage of the population in 1939

Australia 0.57%
New Zealand 0.67%
U.K 0.94%
U.S 0.32%

Now let's get into the grit...
A few selected countries

Germany 10.47%
Poland 16.07%
USSR 13.71%
Latvia 11.38%
Lithuania 13.71%
Portugese Timor 11.00%
Greece 4.31%
Hungary 6.35%
Japan 3.75%
Yugoslavia 6.67%
Belgium 1.02%
Netherlands 2.32%

I guess the difference is that NZ and Australia willingly chose to bear those losses for the benefit of their allies and the world in general, in a war that realistically was never a credible threat to their territories. Whereas the European countries had war forced on them by invasion and/or necessity.

Would those countries have born similar losses protecting Australia/NZ/US Pacific interests in an alternate scenario where there was no European war?

I guess the difference is that NZ and Australia willingly chose to bear those losses for the benefit of their allies and the world in general, in a war that realistically was never a credible threat to their territories. Whereas the European countries had war forced on them by invasion and/or necessity.


You've never heard of the Brisbane line then?

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

NZ and OZ most certainly was under threat by the Japanese and their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Both nations would have only been secondary considerations as the main threat, the U.S., was their main concern. Had the Japanese succeeded in their effort against the U.S. then the threat to us ANZAC'S would have been credible indeed.

You've never heard of the Brisbane line then?

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

NZ and OZ most certainly was under threat by the Japanese and their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Both nations would have only been secondary considerations as the main threat, the U.S., was their main concern. Had the Japanese succeeded in their effort against the U.S. then the threat to us ANZAC'S would have been credible indeed.

I was, of course, referring to the European theatre, where the majority of our ground forces were killed.

As for the Brisbane Line, well that was Australia's fear, not Japan's plan.

Milne Bay in New Guinea was a last ditch effort which had it failed would have left Australia wide open to invaision. New Zealand's presence in the Pacific could have been more significant had we used the division which was stationed in Italy. I have often wondered why this happened as Australia withdrew its divisions after North Africa had been secured.

Up to $776 million worth of new helicopters have been ordered for the RNZAF.

What sort of aircraft would be suitable for an aircombat role for the air force given we no longer have our Skyhawks? ^^

^^
Micro-lights armed with bee bee guns? Should kick some terror into those pesky seaguls

You've never heard of the Brisbane line then?

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

NZ and OZ most certainly was under threat by the Japanese and their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Both nations would have only been secondary considerations as the main threat, the U.S., was their main concern. Had the Japanese succeeded in their effort against the U.S. then the threat to us ANZAC'S would have been credible indeed.

The threat was real. The japs had even printed off Invasion Money for Australia and New Zealand, which they carried when fighting near Aus on the islands.

I think it was fair to say that NZ and Oz could possibly be thankful for the Atomic Bombs that the US dropped on Japan.

While the US would ultimately have been unlikely to fall to the Japanese completely without the A-bombs, it did a big job in stopping the Japanese war effort flat. Japan had caught the Americans off guard in Pearl Harbour and that would have given them a big moral boost for not only their effort against the Americans, but also to troops on other battle fronts and would have even encouraged further attacks on NZ and Oz.

But given that the Americans retaliation was to drop the atomic bombs, it was a weapon far more destructive than anything else the world had seen, and more importantly, a weapon that Japan had no answer to and therefore had no option other than to surrender. This was a defining moment when Japan pulled out of the war.

So the question that begs is that if the US had not have had the atomic bomb, and instead had resorted to more conventional warfare, how much longer would have Japan been fighting a war not only with the US, but on other fronts such as with Australia or New Zealand. I suspect that a real battle on our own soil may have well been a reality.

^^
No. That's fantasy.
Japan had already lost the war and the US was already planning it's invasion.
The usual reasons given for the use of the A-bomb was to spare US lives as it was thought that the Japanese would have fought to the last man, woman and child (prompted by the Iwo Jima & Okinawa experience). Of course that's quite unlikely.
Another reason which is understandably less publicised is that the US military and Truman wanted to use the A-bomb to see what the results would be. Truman even refered to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a succesful ''experiment''.
The real motives may be a combination of the two.
The Japanese were well and truely beaten and Japanese officials in the Military and Parliment were already discussing terms of surrender before the bombs were dropped.

Australians and New Zealanders may like this fanciful tale that they were saved from invasion from the Japanese but the reality is that such an invasion wouldn't have taken place (atleast after 1942 when Japan simply wasn't capable).

Interesting point Kaas. I've come across accounts saying that the Japanese were ready to surrender and that a conventional invasion was unlikely. Apparently attempts to negotiate were ignored by the US, and the argument goes that the US wanted a 'demonstration' to show off the new toys in their arsenal. Maybe, maybe not.

I agree with you re the Japanese threat. Once the US entered the war against the Japanese, while they may have had intentions they lacked the means to credibly threaten NZ and Oz.

^^
With Japan's blue water fleet pretty much destroyed after Midway and Coral Sea I can't imagine that anyone seriously thinks a Japanese invasion of NZ was remotely possible.
The Japanese advance through Asia was essentially stopped by Australian and US troops in Papua New Guinea and the Battle of the Coral Sea destroyed Japans naval capability. So Japan's goose was pretty much already cooked by June 1942 and it was just a matter of time from then on before their defeat.
When the A-bombs were dropped the US already had Okinawa and was in a prime possition to bring Japan to it's knees. Hundres of thousands of civilians had already died due to ''conventional'' and fire bombing by the US on the Japanese mainland. The Japanese had no fuel left and had to resort to compressing pine-roots for aviation fuel - hense the famous Kamikaze raids (no fuel was one of the reasons).

And oh yes, there is some contention as to what degree the US was taken by surprise at Pearl Harbor.

Well they are well and truly here now one of them married my best mate.:nuts:

Back to the subject of a suitable aircraft for the air combat role. Tornadoes must be getting a bit cheaper by now. 18-24 would be suitable. Or maybe some secondhand Hornets from the Americans. Any suggestion?:banana:

As much as I love aviation the question that remains is why?
What for and where would a RNZAF combat wing be used?
Buying soon to be out of date technology would mean it woudn't be of any use deploying on a foreign mission and there aren't any insurgent groups operating in the NZ wilderness to be picked off.
F18s are very sexy beasts but other than that why would NZ purchase them?

Obviously NZ is a sovereign nation but IMO would be better off aligning its resources with Australia and rationalising defences between both countries which would be more cost effective.
I acknowledge however this wouldn't be well received amongst NZ military enthusiasts.

^^ I agree. We have already scaled back our military capacities and reconfigured our forces to operate within UN peacekeeping operations. We already work very closely with Australia on defense, some specific tailoring can't help.

I'm of the view that if we were to reinstate a combat wing of the airforce the only feasible way to go is top of the line. No point spending money on obsolete air superiority fighters. Given we would likely be up against planes like the massively capable SU-27, of which many nations in the pacific operate only, the very best would stand a shit show. Personally I don't see us in that role, far too costly for a nation of 4 mill. Especially when there is still the possibility (i think?) that Australia will be getting its lucky mitts on f-22 raptors (sooner or later no doubt). In that case we'll leave the combat flyin to you chaps. I think it would be more suitable to spend the money on another frigate or two with some more support toys like seasprites and NH90 helicopters and better ground equipment . We could then configure that in with Ozzie forces.

^^
Agreed. NZ's combat wing was already useless by the mid 1950s. NZ purchaced the A4-K Skyhawks at the same time that they were being fased out of US military service. NZ essentially had a totally useless air combat wing untill it was dispanded.

The herald has a debate going on at the moment on the state of NZ military forces. Read only if you dare.

http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/your-views/2008/9/4/what-needs-be-done-defence-force/?c_id=1501154&commentpage=1

By and large a maddening display of people not letting ignorance get in the way of forming a strong opinion. :ohno:

Yes, we need some serious jet planes to keep the filthy foreign mits off our dairy cows and radiata pine. You all know they covet it .........

The herald has a debate going on at the moment on the state of NZ military forces. Read only if you dare.

http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/your-views/2008/9/4/what-needs-be-done-defence-force/?c_id=1501154&commentpage=1

By and large a maddening display of people not letting ignorance get in the way of forming a strong opinion. :ohno:

Oh goodness

I'm interested to know Metroman's motives for wanting NZ to invest in a combat air arm.

I was considering a massive rearmament program which involved making New Zealand the most powerful country in the Asia Pacific.:nuts: I was considering investing in a few aircraft carriers and introducing the draft to start things off.:banana:

The herald has a debate going on at the moment on the state of NZ military forces. Read only if you dare.

http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/your-views/2008/9/4/what-needs-be-done-defence-force/?c_id=1501154&commentpage=1

By and large a maddening display of people not letting ignorance get in the way of forming a strong opinion. :ohno:

Interesting reading...on the flip side if % of GDP on defence spending were to increase something else would have to give ie. health/education etc etc.
Can NZ really afford the increase.
There is a fine balance I'm sure but where there's spending in one area there's bound to be cuts in others. NZ's economy can't afford both. Obviously priorities will come into play, defence currently doesn't appear to be one of them. Is there an election looming ? :2cents::horse:

I was considering a massive rearmament program which involved making New Zealand the most powerful country in the Asia Pacific.:nuts: I was considering investing in a few aircraft carriers and introducing the draft to start things off.:banana:

Thanks for bumping this thread with your useless exercise in uselessness.

National voter right? :lol:

Not really. Seriously I think defence will feature on the horizon, at the moment it doesn't have a huge priority. There has been some spending in recent years. Probably if the region became a little less stable it would have a higher priority. An aircombat role for New Zealand, will eventually become something which is necessary.:)

The only country capable of attacking NZ is the US my friend.
They have whole military geared to waging agressive war on other people's turf.

The only country capable of attacking NZ is the US my friend.
They have whole military geared to waging agressive war on other people's turf.

Don't forget Oz. They are one of the few nations in the region with a military tooled for external force projection (instead of being geared for internal security). China is slowly working their way towards a blue water navy, but I know of no chinese military doctrine that is based on anything other internal issues (taiwan included) and defence. They are striving to maintain a retaliatory nuclear strike capability. Fun fun.

I was considering a massive rearmament program which involved making New Zealand the most powerful country in the Asia Pacific.:nuts: I was considering investing in a few aircraft carriers and introducing the draft to start things off.:banana:

Geez not all of us divulge our sexual fantasies quite so clearly on this forum....:lol:

^^
Quite :lol:

@Neitzsche. I suspected you might remind me that Australia was the other.
It's funny that people should be concerned about boosting our defences when it is our 'friends' that are the ones with the capability to attack us. So who would we protecting ourselves against one might ask?

We need a bigger and better army. We should make sure New Zealand is a country that people don't fuck with. We should have sent some troops to the Pitcairn Islands to deal with the 'funny business' that goes on there!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

They should buy at least two C-17's as well.Production of these is due to stop in 2009.Maybe the Govt might be lucky enuff to secure a good deal on an "end of line" order.
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i29/blairboy_2006/copy_c17.jpg

U know one of these babies cost 150 million NET, cost of support and running one of these add 17-20 million per calendar year.

This does not include spare parts, crew and ground handling. You are talking annual cost in region of 30-35 million per unit.

^^ yes please.

^^
Quite :lol:

@Neitzsche. I suspected you might remind me that Australia was the other.
It's funny that people should be concerned about boosting our defences when it is our 'friends' that are the ones with the capability to attack us. So who would we protecting ourselves against one might ask?

You know me well. Kinda needs to be pointed out that no one is more dangerous than Europeans. We're the kingpins of death and destruction, the merchants of chaos and mayhem. Sadly we also fabulous at convincing ourselves that somehow its all for a righteous cause and we're on the 'good' side.

war is dumb

Our military spending and the stuff that we do is basically an insurance policy, just as it should be. We're realistically never going to be able to fully defend ourselves against someone determined to fuck with us: neither can most small countries. However, by being involved in international operations (and being fairly inoffensive in world affairs) we're paying our insurance premium. If the shit hits the fan, then we've got a damn good cause to have a fair few countries come help us out.

out of curiosity, how easy or practical would it be for anyone to attack NZ anyway? you guys are pretty isolated compared to most other countries, meaning that any enemy would need to have massive resources to continue supplying their forces (ie: a large navy, long distance planes, etc) a long way from their home.

disclaimer: i am definitely no defence expert, just wondering.

as for merging the NZ/Aussie armed forces, it doesn't sound practical. i don't know of any other two countries in the world who share a military and even members of the EU are somewhat queasy about the idea.

Just need to take a look at the problem's the United Kingdom encountered in their efforts to retake the Falkland Island's from Argentina in 1982. And the UK was one of the world powers (only 2 super powers at that time) and Argentina were no small fry!

PS the Falklands were (and are) a bunch of small barely populated rocks at the arse end of the Atlantic Ocean (Same ocean as the UK and Argentina).

out of curiosity, how easy or practical would it be for anyone to attack NZ anyway? you guys are pretty isolated compared to most other countries, meaning that any enemy would need to have massive resources to continue supplying their forces (ie: a large navy, long distance planes, etc) a long way from their home.

disclaimer: i am definitely no defence expert, just wondering.

\

On the face of it pretty easy. With no air force air superiority would be a given for the invading force. The ANZAC frigates have some anti-air capability, but would inevitably be over run. Given the geography our main cities would be a tad tricky to take, especially Auckland. We're not gun totting folk so any guerrilla efforts would be pretty minor. Perhaps our east coast friends could put some of that training of theirs to use. :lol:

In reality thou, the odds of a nation invading NZ is slim to none. Jarbury is correct in pointing out our heavy investment in the global multilateral system. Even if it were to collapse we would never be a primary target. The fact is that the planet would be a burnt out cinder long before any nation made their way down here. The strategic concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is still very much with us today.

Come to think of it, who or what nations have any kind of naval air combat capability which has to include a capable aircraft carrier PLUS the support vessels to stop AGM-84 equipped Orion P3-K's.

Me I can only think of...
USA
Russia
China
India
France
UK
Italy
Thailand
Brazil
and... oh, Spain.

^^
Most of those are small V/STOL carriers with few aircraft.
The US still really remains the only country with real ability to carry out an effective ''full scale'' attack thousands of miles from home.
Other countries could carry out raids but a full scale invasion would be asking an awful lot.

The other thing, I remember reading a while back that NZ has one of the largest per capita firearm ownership levels in, well, in the world.


Shit, just checked Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership#cite_note-Killias_1993-1) and we are 12th!!!!!! Frack me!

But you can never trust wikipedia for total accuracy can you?

So there is a potential militia, just waiting at every farm gate, bach, treehouse and outhouse throughout our peace loving green nation :nuts:.

Now those wiki stats get even more frightning as it does state the total number of guns divided by the whole population. Think about the nightmare all those people who trash our armed forces as under equipped, when they realise all those guns must be in private hands, not the military :)

^^
Freedom!
We are the land of the free. We have guns! :lol:

Personally I think NZ should invest more in our military. Not for defence reasons...no country apart from a few of our allies can even successfully invade us anyway. The logistics of invading NZ is a nightmare, even China would really struggle. It's more for maintaining good relations with said key allies. A billion extra a year in defence will be paid back three-fold by the goodwill we get from these countries.

^^ Not just that, but we are a major power in the Pacific region. I think for peacekeeping missions alone we should have a fully functioning, well equipped military force.

So back to metroman's question.
Would this include having a air combat element and if so, what?

Air combat unit - no I don't think so. Yes, it would be sexy as hell, but a P3-K Orion With a bunch of stand-off hellfire missiles could do a lot of damage to some barracks in Fiji, and avoid the potential threat of a shoulder fired SAM, then loiter off the coast to take out any speed boats.

Didn't I see on the news the other night an Orion test firing one of these, or was that from a helicopter? Doesn't matter, the Orions are rated to carry them, just a case of the government footing this bill.

I'm happy with were our navy as is, maybe a few more littoral vessels but no more frigates. Maybe another CANTERBURY for a bit of force projection into the Pacific or humanitarian duty. A couple of these loitering off Suva and the Generals would have no idea where the SAS would infiltrate.

Air Combat is an attractive asset to have but not nessesary in the NZ defence sphere. NZ does need to retain good relations and interoperable capability so that the NZ forces can work competantly with others when on deployment. Having said that the NZ armed forces do need beefing up. SE Asia is not exactly a quiet part of the world and its not unrealistic to imagine some major conflicts in the region in the next 10 years.

^^
SE Asia has a general history of internal conflict. The conflicts in the area are still local.
It's when the big boys stick their noses in that the conflicts break their borders.
The only times that these conflicts have spread beyond borders were during the Japanese conquests of the 1930s and 40s, and Vietnam due to US intervention.

So back to metroman's question.
Would this include having a air combat element and if so, what?

I'll indulge in a bit of what if. I'm hardly an expert, but its an excuse to show pics of cool toys.

Some of the better options

Sukhoi Su-37

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c203/Randini123/300px-Su37_02.jpg

Based on the highly capable Su-27, but with the added whizz-bang of vectored thrusting. As I understand it this is one seriously big threat to pretty much any other combat fighter on the planet. It is massively maneuverable and is formidable in a close quarters dog fights.

F-22

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c203/Randini123/F-22_bomb.jpg

Billed as the top superiority fighter on the planet. Easily the most technologically advanced, sports nifty vector trusting also and a mild stealth capability - check the photo, all armaments are internal, hence the door opening to fire missiles or drop bombs. Needs massive communications infrastructure - satellites, radar etc so it can detect and engage from a safe distance. Would be a long wait before the yanks would sell to us. Has been criticized for not being a strong performer in a multi-combat role.

F-35 lightening II

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c203/Randini123/749px-F-l3_lift_fan.jpg

Sibbling to the f-22. Thanks to some gear similar to a Harrier it can perform short takeoff and vertical landing tricks. Not full VTOL styles but. Apparently expected to be a US air superiority fighter through to 2040. Not quite as capable as its big brother. The ozzies have a big order so we could possibly squeeze in also.

Eurofighter

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c203/Randini123/800px-Eurofighter_9803_5.jpg

Plenty of bells and whistles, but not quite a 5th gen fighter. Apparently very capable in a dog fight. Perhaps a bit dowdy in present company. Almost expensive as an f-22, but better odds of actually purchasing.

Sukhoi Su-47

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c203/Randini123/S37-3.jpg

Not on the market, but apparently its maneuverability is off the charts. I'd buy one just for the looks.


Personally if I had the taxpayers checkbook I'd splash out on a squadron of Su-37's. Easily one of, if not the most dangerous planes in the sky. This was clearly demonstrated recently in a performance test. The F-35 engaged in war games with some less advanced suhkoi jets and still got 'clubbed like seal'. The ozzies are now seriously reconsidering their A$16 billion (crikey) purchase. Looks to me like US defence contractors have been on the gravy train a bit too long. If a brand new 5th gen fighter is getting utterly trounced by out-dated equipment from another country its time to start worrying.

Dude...no way NZ can afford an attack squadron with those planes. The F-22 costs US$130 million each! The F-35 is US $85 million. Half a dozen of them would blow our budget. We'd be looking at something like F16's if we ever go back to attack aircraft. They're a reasonable US$15m each.

What sort of price tag would other secondhand aircraft like Tornadoes, Jaguars or Hornets cost? ^^

Dude...no way NZ can afford an attack squadron with those planes. The F-22 costs US$130 million each! The F-35 is US $85 million. Half a dozen of them would blow our budget. We'd be looking at something like F16's if we ever go back to attack aircraft. They're a reasonable US$15m each.

Totally, that's why its a bad idea. But if we were to reinstate the strike wing of the aircraft it's utterly pointless to have anything less than the best possible option, otherwise its a massive waste of money.

Sukhoi Su-37

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c203/Randini123/300px-Su37_02.jpg

Based on the highly capable Su-27, but with the added whizz-bang of vectored thrusting. As I understand it this is one seriously big threat to pretty much any other combat fighter on the planet. It is massively maneuverable and is formidable in a close quarters dog fights.

.


It's a sexy plane alright.

What sort of price tag would other secondhand aircraft like Tornadoes, Jaguars or Hornets cost? ^^

There is no point in buying any of those sort of aircraft - why would you?! Its like owning a transport business and equipping your fleet with 25 year old trucks when all the competition have vehicles less than 5 years old; you would be forced out of the market through inefficencies in a very short time; I believe there is one fighter that New Zealand could afford and is relatively capable and has been overlooked on here...

The Saab JAS 39 Gripen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAS_39_Gripen)


http://www.gripen.com/images/18.10948cf10331003a2d800064/050415_AAR

What sort of price tag would other secondhand aircraft like Tornadoes, Jaguars or Hornets cost? ^^

There is no point in buying any of those sort of aircraft - why would you?! Its like owning a transport business and equipping your fleet with 25 year old trucks when all the competition have vehicles less than 5 years old; you would be forced out of the market through inefficencies in a very short time; you would buy new and new alone...

I believe there is another fighter that New Zealand could afford and is relatively capable and has been overlooked on here...

The Saab JAS 39 Gripen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAS_39_Gripen)


http://www.airfighters.com/photo_24680.jpg

It'd be good to see NZ get a couple of alert fighter craft or something. Sukhois or F35's would be good, but might be pretty expensive for 5-6 of them.

I think you would easily be looking at a price tag of $500 million to $1 billion for a dozen Saab Vigens. The deal we were offered on the F16s a few years ago would have saved us a lot of money had New Zealand gone ahead with purchasing them.:banana:

Saab Gripen from Sweden.^^

Is this necessary?
Budget 09: Defence Force receives $52m boost (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/defence/news/article.cfm?c_id=32&objectid=10575074)
With buildings and equipment in need of repair and trouble recruiting and retaining staff the Defence Force will welcome a $52 million boost next year.

The increased funding - a total of $309m over four years - will help the Defence Force "meet its operational challenges", Defence Minister Wayne Mapp said.

"A modern, well-equipped defence sector is vital for keeping New Zealand secure and for promoting peace and security in our region and further afield."

Today's budget also provided $1m for the Defence White Paper.

The White Paper was expected to be released on March 30 next year.

The review, the first since a major inquiry by the Defence and Trade select committee in 1999, will take a broad look at all issues affecting the Defence Force.

The $52m will fund:

* Restoring and improving infrastructure ($15m)

* Increased aircraft activity and maintenance ($10m)

* Operation and maintenance of new navy ships ($5m)

* Improved soldier protection ($2m)

* Improved intelligence capability ($1m)

* Improved recruitment and retention ($13m)

* Other initiatives ($6m)

- NZPA

I am curious as to what "challenges" the NZDF meets.
I am curious as to what is threatening the "peace and security in our region". Even if there were threats, would an upgraded New Zealand military ever be capable of standing up to much larger countries?
I also would not like to see the NZ military become involved in "promoting peace and security... further afield". Why is it our duty? Especially when we have more important thing to spend our money on.

^^ It shouldn't at all be our duty to promote peace further afield. Unless we decide to on a moral principle or are helping our closest allies *citation needed*. We shouldn't be getting involved in other peoples fuck ups, we're far too small a country to be doing so. When Dubya Bush said in 2001 "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.." What about the option of well it's not our problem, you deal with it. I'm still not convinced Afghanistan was our fight to fight...

On another note. I strongly support increasing our defence on a national and South Pacific level. Say a powerfull nation with a well equipped military decided to invade us one day (US, Russia, China, Israel, N. Korea, Egypt for example) No we wouldn't have a shite's chance of winning a war, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pull our pants down and give up without a fight. I for one wouldn't. Vietnam anybody? :rant:

Defence White Paper? Can I take that to mean a look at what future spending will be recquired for the future?

On another note. I strongly support increasing our defence on a national and South Pacific level. Say a powerfull nation with a well equipped military decided to invade us one day (US, Russia, China, Israel, N. Korea, Egypt for example) No we wouldn't have a shite's chance of winning a war, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pull our pants down and give up without a fight. I for one wouldn't. Vietnam anybody? :rant:

:lol::lol: Ok This is going to be a fun exercise in supporting the rationale of our previous administration :).

Sorry but which of those actually have maritime and/or amphibious capabilities to actually put troops on the ground in NZ. Even Australia would be extremely stretched. The distance between Wellington, New Zealand and Sydney, Australia, is 1,378 miles (2,218 km) (1,198 nautical miles). So they want to soften us up a bit with some tactical bombing. If they do it before 2010 their 21 F111 have a combat radius of 2,140 km. Shit that's 78km short, might have to leave a few bombs at home. After that they are "downgrading" to the F/A 18 with a "Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometres), clean plus two AIM-9s". Problem with these short range AIM-9's is they shoot down other fighters, so commercial pilots better look out! :lol::lol:The biggest threat will come from their 19 P-3 Orion's!

The HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Manoora could each put down 400 embarked forces plus vehicles on a beachhead while being shielded by coordination of numerous military specialties, including air power, naval gunfire, naval transport, logistical planning, specialized equipment, land warfare, tactics, and extensive training. Australia's navy air arm is entirely helicopter based, and all helicopters have problems in missile rich environments.

That leaves commando delivery units or commercial freighter (which can work IF a deep water port is secured first). Though please note there are "about 230,000 licensed firearms owners (who) own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." "Kiwis go for the big guns", Dominion Post, Tuesday 7 November 2006. Who knows how many unlicensed? Militia anyone?

North Korea's Najin class frigate would get 6,437 kilometres before running out of Diesel, and that's about 4,000 kilometres short :ohno:. And I just haven't been able to find any evidence of dedicated navy refueling ships (Oillers).

Only 3 nations have true dedicated blue water capabilities - to project self-contained force protection from sub-surface, surface and airborne threats and a sustainable logistic reach, allowing a persistent presence at range - the USA, UK and France.

There are 3 others with potential blue water capabilities - could do so and are probably capable of projecting power into other nations' littoral waters out of the blue-water - Russia, Italy, and India!

Yes the Egyptian navy is impressive but they just don't have the legs to project force out to NZ.

China is the odd one out. On paper they have the necessary equipment BUT...
The Type 072 Yukan, Type 072II Yuting I, and Type 072III Yuting II class large landing ships all come up 5,000km one way short, without refuelling support. Their one big long range Amphibious Transport Dock Type 071 Yuzhao class could almost make it, again without refuelling.

Now the do have, literally, a handful of aging support vessels. So unless they acquire a series of friendly replenishment ports/allies, I'd say a couple of lucky shots from our frigates would quickly put paid to any imperial ambitions. PS, no aircraft carriers, yet (2015???).

Our defence work is like an insurance policy. We help out others when required and when we think it's acceptable. That means that if we never need help then we cash in our insurance policy and a whole pile of people come to help us out.

As kane pointed out, when will we ever need help?

As kane pointed out, when will we ever need help?

When I form the nation of Svartopia and come back and enslave you all. :bash:

I bet svartopia would have good trains.

I bet svartopia would have good trains.

You betcha! A TGV, ICE-3 or Shinkansen in every driveway. :nuts:

(And I'll stop spamming now)

New Zealand Defence Force is a bit of a misnomer isn't it...considering they spend all their time and money defending others, and couldn't defend us from anyone who would want to/has the capability to attack anyway.

The most powerful military in all history couldn't protect the World Trade centre, NYC, from attack (TWICE).

Regarding the above, would nations like China really be stupid enough to see their global economic aspirations go up in smoke, if they started lobbing WMD's and other heavy weapons about?

The domino theory used to justify the Vietnam War turned out to be a heap of bollocks. The Vietnamese weren't particularly interested in spreading Communism, rather they were more interested in self-determination along the lines of Tito's Yugoslavia (without the ethnic tensions).

North Korea's recent missile launches are intended to be chest-thumping, but it comes across more as a nervous & desperate squeal than a chest thump. They're basically bankrupt, they're just in denial about it.

If there is a genuine threat, it'll more likely come in the form of sleeper cells or one-man threats, which are issues for intelligence gatherers to address.

^^ Of which the first instance was 1986 Rainbow Warrior and more recently Chaucer Rd, Napier.

Kane is dead right. Only the United States has the capability to defeat NZ in a defence based war. No other country has a chance.

Sure our military is tiny and poorly funded, but how exactly will these invading armies reach us? And even if by some miricle they manage to find bombers with enough range to hit us, how would they get an army of 200,000 to actually invade?

Wars are no longer fought like that anyway. Threats are likely to happen in our region certainly not in the form of an invaision force. One must not ignore that a regional arms race is starting to begin. New Zealand's likely role is in some sort of defence union with Australia to form an Anzac force and it may mean New Zealand has to foot some of the defence bill. This would be great news for people in the New Zealand defence forces who have had to endure with crap equipment for so long. It has been sad to see New Zealand's defence forces so sadly rundown inspite of the fact New Zealand has such a highly trained defence personell by world standards.

:):) Ok This is going to be a fun exercise in supporting the rationale of our previous administration .

Sorry but which of those actually have maritime and/or amphibious capabilities to actually put troops on the ground in NZ. Even Australia would be extremely stretched. The distance between Wellington, New Zealand and Sydney, Australia, is 1,378 miles (2,218 km) (1,198 nautical miles). So they want to soften us up a bit with some tactical bombing. If they do it before 2010 their 21 F111 have a combat radius of 2,140 km. Shit that's 78km short, might have to leave a few bombs at home. After that they are "downgrading" to the F/A 18 with a "Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometres), clean plus two AIM-9s". Problem with these short range AIM-9's is they shoot down other fighters, so commercial pilots better look out! The biggest threat will come from their 19 P-3 Orion's!

The HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Manoora could each put down 400 embarked forces plus vehicles on a beachhead while being shielded by coordination of numerous military specialties, including air power, naval gunfire, naval transport, logistical planning, specialized equipment, land warfare, tactics, and extensive training. Australia's navy air arm is entirely helicopter based, and all helicopters have problems in missile rich environments.

That leaves commando delivery units or commercial freighter (which can work IF a deep water port is secured first). Though please note there are "about 230,000 licensed firearms owners (who) own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.1 million firearms." "Kiwis go for the big guns", Dominion Post, Tuesday 7 November 2006. Who knows how many unlicensed? Militia anyone?

North Korea's Najin class frigate would get 6,437 kilometres before running out of Diesel, and that's about 4,000 kilometres short . And I just haven't been able to find any evidence of dedicated navy refueling ships (Oillers).

Only 3 nations have true dedicated blue water capabilities - to project self-contained force protection from sub-surface, surface and airborne threats and a sustainable logistic reach, allowing a persistent presence at range - the USA, UK and France.

There are 3 others with potential blue water capabilities - could do so and are probably capable of projecting power into other nations' littoral waters out of the blue-water - Russia, Italy, and India!

Yes the Egyptian navy is impressive but they just don't have the legs to project force out to NZ.

China is the odd one out. On paper they have the necessary equipment BUT...
The Type 072 Yukan, Type 072II Yuting I, and Type 072III Yuting II class large landing ships all come up 5,000km one way short, without refuelling support. Their one big long range Amphibious Transport Dock Type 071 Yuzhao class could almost make it, again without refuelling.

Now the do have, literally, a handful of aging support vessels. So unless they acquire a series of friendly replenishment ports/allies, I'd say a couple of lucky shots from our frigates would quickly put paid to any imperial ambitions. PS, no aircraft carriers, yet (2015???).
:guns1:

Kane007

I Hate to burst your bubble ,but have you ever heard of fleet replenishment & refuelling at sea and refuelling in air (not to mention drop tanks), which the aussies are more than capable of. By the way they (RAAF) have just taken delivery of five A300 airbus as refuelling tankers which could refuel not only their FA 18 and Super Hornets, the Hawk Mk127 trainers (which can quickly be modified to fighter capability) the F35 fighter/ bombers which are soon to be delivered, (by the way some of the better F111C will be mothballed not destroyed for insurance purposes) plus the five C17 Globemasters (currently in op) which could deliver the 79 M1A1 Abrams they posses not to mention their euro tiger copters and Kiowa fighter copters. I probably should also touch on the six collins class submarines (eqpd wi suface to air missiles... suposedly classified) that can circumnavigate the globe underwater. Don't forget the Adelaide class frigate/destroyers and of course also the six ANZAC class frigates all these armed with SAM missiles etc. (some of which these missiles could reach NZ from just off the aussie coast) plus all the other hardware that is yet to come on line such as the new F102Almirante Juan frigates Don't forget the JHSV such as Westpac Express. These vessels are constructed by a Perth company and are very handy indeed. When the Aussies first went into east timor to confront the Indonesians and Indonesian sympathisers this vessel carried a battalion of aussies plus associated hardware, vehicles etc. These vessels were so admired by US military that the Perth company Austal now also build these incredible ships in the USA. There is also much more hardware etc I could speak of, but I wish not to be thrown in the brig. I think if the aussies did wish to invade NZ they could leave their ASLAVS at home. However having family on both sides of the ditch the aussies assure me it is the last thing on their mind. Apparently they would first just send over Dud Rudd :) and threat to leave him here which would prove much worse than a war with the aussies. I do concur with Cartel and I do beleive our fine pilots of RNZAF do need a fighter aircraft to keep their skills honed if only as an insurance policy

Invading NZ, has NZ got oil or something?

Invading NZ, has NZ got oil or something?
How about plenty of water ......... :)

An interesting "Pundit" article on this issue: http://pundit.co.nz/content/the-new-anzac-relationship-good-cop-bad-cop

And Skyline Myline, can you enlighten us as to why Australia would actually 'want' or 'need' to invade New Zealand?

There is little point in spending massive sums of cash developing a defence force to protect us from an 'imaginary' enemy.

Australia is simply not likely in this century to invade us - we need them economically... and they need us. Out allies (US and UK for example) are the same as Australia's so I'm not sure how that will work even if they wanted to invade?

A defence force is built us to protect us from possible and expected attacks - For New Zealand, as has been pointed out, there are very few countries that could realistically take on New Zealand, and of those, none are particularly likely to even want to invade us.

Our greatest threat, and even then we are still considered low risk, is terrorism. And for that, I can't see why we would be fighting terrorism with Aircraft Carriers and FA-18's

:grouphug:And Skyline Myline, can you enlighten us as to why Australia would actually 'want' or 'need' to invade New Zealand?

There is little point in spending massive sums of cash developing a defence force to protect us from an 'imaginary' enemy.

Australia is simply not likely in this century to invade us - we need them economically... and they need us. Out allies (US and UK for example) are the same as Australia's so I'm not sure how that will work even if they wanted to invade?

A defence force is built us to protect us from possible and expected attacks - For New Zealand, as has been pointed out, there are very few countries that could realistically take on New Zealand, and of those, none are particularly likely to even want to invade us.:cheers:

Our greatest threat, and even then we are still considered low risk, is terrorism. And for that, I can't see why we would be fighting terrorism with Aircraft Carriers and FA-18's

KaneD
As stated by Kane007 not too many (if any) countries would want to invade NZ persay esp. Australia. However I think part of Australia's military strategy is now looking at the potential/possibility of NZ being invaded by a future/present hostile force (against Australia) and using NZ as a stepping stone/beachhead to Australia's eastern seaboard. This is part of the justification of Australia's military not just concentrating on a northern defence but a west base and east base focus as well. Although in agreement with Kane007 I wanted to point out to Kane007 that due to this concept Australia does have the military capability to invade/liberate NZ. As Australia's military strength increases this capability is made easier (they are now in the process of commencing a build of two amphibious/aircraft, troop ,hardware carriers. I also am in agreement with you KaneD that NZ greatest threat at the moment is terrorism. As/if Australia perceives invasion of NZ (as a stepping stone to gain Australia's mineral wealth etc) as a possible scenario and as Australia is growing in military might they could possibly lend/lease a squadron of the 100 to 125 F35 joint strike fighter that they are to take delivery of or possibly some other military hardware that NZ could make use of on Australia's behalf. Also worth reading is Jarbury's link to "pundit".

I reckon most of the military strategists who come up with crazy ideas like countries invading NZ are still stuck in the cold war days and rather bored.

Classic example is that American guy who put together his "the next 100 years" book, or something like that. The Listener even did a cover-piece on it, and I couldn't help but think "hey wake up, it's not the 1980s anymore".

This really brings up to the topic of a union with Australia. The final barrier at the moment are passports. New Zealand is always going to need very tight border controls because of our unique wildlife. Our role in the future is essentially as a policeman for the U.N. This will still mean a good military force is needed none the less. Sharing the defence bill is logical and it is naive to think that there aren't any real threats in the Asia Pacific region because there are a number of possible scenarios. While it is a rediculous scenario of Australia invading New Zealand. They are doing it economically. Australia may indeed look to New Zealand to expand its mining interests. At the moment New Zealand is hardly a real player in mining or energy production, that is largely to do with government policies, don't think for a moment that we haven't come across on their radar as future sources.:cheers:

^^ Agreed metroman - as unpopular a union with Australia would be, it would have advantages.

The first step would probably be an Oceanic Dollar - Perhaps Oz, NZ, PNG and pacific island (fiji, tonga etc).

But this is a diffierent topic for a different forum. :)

^^ Oh no no no no no. I cant get on board with that.

Australia is not there to support NZs military shortcomings. We can hardly keep our northern border safe! Ive stayed out of this thread because Im afraid I will rant and not do my position any good service.

Whether it is true or not we would see it as NZ getting a free ride on the Australian taxpayer. No Australian would like that. Even when the irony seems to be we make so much money from you guys skimming profits from 'your' malls, supermarkets, banks.

And not the place for it but no currency 'union' per se. If Pacific nations, including New Zealand want a union they can adopt the Australian Dollar and nothing else. We do not need to change our currency to be more inclusive of NZ or Fiji or PNG. I think as the bigger, more stable nation with the (by far) larger economy we can call the shots on that one.

It is the most likely scenario I would agree with Milan. New Zealand adopting the Aussie dollar. As for the other nations of the pacific, I think they are probably too unstable. If New Zealand does become part of a joint defence initiative, it certainly would be paying its way. Added to that more Kiwis in the Adf which already has a reasonable number would further improve it. The New Zealand SaS are amongst the best units in the world.:)

Union with Australia? There is nothing in it for the Aussies that's for sure so why would they bother.

As for adopting the Aussie dollar? Maybe i'm reacting to that on purely emotional grounds but the thought of adopting another nation's currency does not appeal to me.

It wouldn't be a union like Europe it would be us absorbed in to Aussie which would make us a de facto state of Australia. I don't think that would do a a lot for either country would it?

I also agree Australia is not there to support our Military or other shortcomings we are an independent nation who needs to stand on our own two feet. If we want a military alliance with anyone else we need to bring somthing to the table to make it worthwhile to them as well. As has been pointed out they have enough on their plate defending their northern border they don't need to carry us as well.

You make it sound as though New Zealand would be a liability to Australia. While New Zealand maybe suffering a little more than Australia in this recession it is highly likely that we will be in positive growth territory towards the end of the year. If New Zealand contributed to Australia's defence budget then I can tell you for a fact it certainly wouldn't be a case of Australia taking on extra baggage. That is basically what is being envisaged. While New Zealand may have run down its military forces, it does have some of the best service men and women in the world, a combined force would not only be logical but also symbolic. New Zealand is hardly a basket case of a country, a union is already taking place although it is not likely that we will have senators in Canberra. I think New Zealand will retain much of its sovereignty and culture, Kiwis are simply too proud and patriotic to be assimilated into an extra state of Australia. :bash::cheers:

Not to mention the economies aren't exactly well matched overall. I much prefer the NZ economic outlook to the Australian (despite how hard NZ was hit in this recession compared to Oz). NZ should look at better ties with Asian countries rather than Australia, a single union isn't necessarily to NZ's benefit.

NZ and Aus becoming one country....I won't say it will never happen but the chances of this occuring is pretty remote. Aussies would probably be against it due to perceived lack of economic benefit to Australia and Kiwis would be against it because they'd fear loss of identity and being overshadowed in a global sense.

You make it sound as though New Zealand would be a liability to Australia. While New Zealand maybe suffering a little more than Australia in this recession it is highly likely that we will be in positive growth territory towards the end of the year. If New Zealand contributed to Australia's defence budget then I can tell you for a fact it certainly wouldn't be a case of Australia taking on extra baggage. That is basically what is being envisaged. While New Zealand may have run down its military forces, it does have some of the best service men and women in the world, a combined force would not only be logical but also symbolic. New Zealand is hardly a basket case of a country, a union is already taking place although it is not likely that we will have senators in Canberra. I think New Zealand will retain much of its sovereignty and culture, Kiwis are simply too proud and patriotic to be assimilated into an extra state of Australia. :bash::cheers:

Based on our Milatary capabilites at the moment were would sure as hell not be a major asset would we?

One thing i do agree is we are not a basket case economy according to the graph svartmetall posted we are actually reasonably stable, so why would we need to adopt the Aussie dollar?

Having a close relationship econmically makes sense, we already have that with CER. A "union" as such does not. Australia does not need or want one with NZ. NZ would not be an equal partner in a union anyway, any economic descisions made would be made soley for the benefit of Australia. We would as i said become a de facto state. How would that be good for us?

Australia is not there to help NZ along they are their own nation with their own goals and aspirations. They for most part couldn't give a rats arse about NZ and nor should they. NZ needs to forge it's own destiny without trying to rid on the coattails of our bigger neighbour. We will always have a close relationship with them as the nearest economy of any size to NZ.

As for co -operating militarly i agree we should where it makes sense but if we want that it has to be mutually beneficial we have offer somthing substantial to them to make it worthwhile.

NZ and Aus becoming one country....I won't say it will never happen but the chances of this occuring is pretty remote. Aussies would probably be against it due to perceived lack of economic benefit to Australia and Kiwis would be against it because they'd fear loss of identity and being overshadowed in a global sense.

Bang on the money, Aussie have nothing to gain, NZ has a lot to lose.

NZ is probably one major disaster away from union with Oz. A devastating earthquake in Wellington would raise the issue, but one of Ak's volcanoes blowing its top would see 1000's of refugees pouring over this way.

I dunno, realistically I think climate-related disasters/economic issues are more likely to send Australians this way in the next century than vice-versa.

Not to mention the economies aren't exactly well matched overall. I much prefer the NZ economic outlook to the Australian.

Do you mean that you think NZ will economically outperform Australia in the long run, or that you prefer NZ's economic policies?

Just in case there is still some lingering doubt about Australia's overall military capability in the context of NZ the following report puts the issue in little doubt...

AUSTRALIA'S defence budget is now the 13th biggest in the world, an international league table shows.

Canberra's defence spending has leapt by about 56 per cent in the past seven years to $25.66 billion, meaning it now spends more than most European Union countries.

BIG DEFENCE SPENDERS
1. US $US696.30 billion
2. Britain $US79.27 billion
3. France $US65.74 billion.
4. China $US58.07 billion
5. Japan $US48.10 billion
6. Germany $US43.55 billion
7. Saudi Arabia $US38.32 billion
8. Russian Federation $US36.73 billion
9. Italy $US31.40 billion
10. South Korea $US28.30 billion
11. India $US27.21 billion
12. Brazil $US24.62 billion
13. Australia $US19.74 billion
14. Spain $US19.37 billion
15. Canada $US16.19 billion

Source: Jane's Industry Quarterly

Jane's has forecast Australia's spending to hit $29.47 billion in 2010 which would mean we would be the 10th largest in the world.

I also agree that an Australian invasion of NZ will never happen.

If Australia wanted to deny a foreign agressor from using NZ as a possible base to attack Australia from, the capabilties Australia is building would be more than sufficient to deny that foreign power from getting a proper foothold in NZ in the first place.

Australia will have at least 3 squadrons of F35's, 18 Super Hornets, a submarine fleet of 12, at least 3 Air Warfare Destroyers, a squadron of AWACs and a fleet of air to air refuellers - and some of the subs will be fitted with long range cruise missles.

An OZ invasion of NZ will never happen ( unless you count the 1,000,000 visitors who arrived last year that is!!) :)

Wow the US is so far ahead of everybody else. Thats unreal. Would have thought China would be further up the list now though. Whats NZs i wonder. $1m a year lol?

Interestingly enough, Australia has about 12m fewer people than Canada, yet is higher up the list.

Interestingly enough, Australia has about 12m fewer people than Canada, yet is higher up the list.

Well NZ is the Canada of the South Pacific isn't it?

An OZ invasion of NZ will never happen ( unless you count the 1,000,000 visitors who arrived last year that is!!) :)

Yep, keep 'em coming lol.

NZ is probably one major disaster away from union with Oz. A devastating earthquake in Wellington would raise the issue, but one of Ak's volcanoes blowing its top would see 1000's of refugees pouring over this way.


Pretty unlikely I reckon. Have any nations ever joined as a result of a natural disaster?

Although you do raise a good point. imo Kiwis need a strong military for this very reason. Sure the Civil Defence thing is important but if Christchurch suffers a 7.0 Id like to see 20000 KIWI troops deployed.

Do you mean that you think NZ will economically outperform Australia in the long run, or that you prefer NZ's economic policies?

I prefer NZ economic policies overall. I do wonder about the sustainability of Australia's economy if something were to happen to the mining sector - just looking at Sydney and most of NSW for evidence of this.

20,000 sounds like an appropriate size for New Zealand's defence forces in the future. That would be a good size for civil defence, rapid deployment force, border protection etc. That would possibly include an aircombat capability 24 F18s secondhand from Australia, an amphibious troop ship much like HMAS Toobruk, which I believe New Zealand nearly bought. A few more patrol boats for border security. Just floating a few ideas.:banana:

I prefer NZ economic policies overall. I do wonder about the sustainability of Australia's economy if something were to happen to the mining sector - just looking at Sydney and most of NSW for evidence of this.

An unsustainable Australia would mean an unsustainable New Zealand. However, service industries still dominate Australia. Admittedly, Sydney hasn't been growing as quickly as the mining cities of Perth or Queensland; however, the fasted growing city at the moment is Melbourne, not a mining reliant city.

An unsustainable Australia would mean an unsustainable New Zealand. However, service industries still dominate Australia. Admittedly, Sydney hasn't been growing as quickly as the mining cities of Perth or Queensland; however, the fasted growing city at the moment is Melbourne, not a mining reliant city.

Which is precisely why I say that closer ties with Asia are more important than close ties with Australia.

I also agree that Melbourne is seeing very impressive growth - especially given its recent history during the Kennett Government.

If Australian mining ever fails it would be because Asian demand has fallen ie Asian economies are experiencing trouble, if this were the case, the NZ ties with Asia wouldn't be much good.

If Australian mining ever fails it would be because Asian demand has fallen ie Asian economies are experiencing trouble, if this were the case, the NZ ties with Asia wouldn't be much good.

I'd imagine that the rapid urbanisation and consumption of raw materials in developing Asian economies is driving the mining boom - but what happens when this levels out? The demand won't be there to the same level, yet it doesn't mean that their economies are failing or experiencing trouble.

If Australian mining ever fails it would be because Asian demand has fallen ie Asian economies are experiencing trouble, if this were the case, the NZ ties with Asia wouldn't be much good.

A mining boom could also end as Australian resources get depleted...

A mining boom could also end as Australian resources get depleted...

Not for a while, The expansion of the Olympic Dam mine by BHP is expected to yield 1 Trillion in resources over the next 100 years.

Australia is a *big* place, with mineral reserves of 100s of years.

1 trillion what? OZ dollars?
Also, I will be interested to find out whether the estimates, saying there's 100s of years of mineral resources, are based on current rates of consumtion, or current rates of growth of consumption. Can make a significant difference.

I'd imagine that the rapid urbanisation and consumption of raw materials in developing Asian economies is driving the mining boom - but what happens when this levels out? The demand won't be there to the same level, yet it doesn't mean that their economies are failing or experiencing trouble.

Developed Asian countries like Japan, South Korea and Singapore still have a strong manufacturing sector--made in China's going nowhere. China may one day fully urbanise and the boom times won't last for ever, but demand for minerals won't ever fall so rapidly that Australia's in total strife

The fact is that not only does Australia have significant natural resources which are not likely to run out for the forseeable future but its population growth rates are increasing as well.

Natural birth rates are at the highest levels since the 1960's (baby bonus etc) and adding immigration to this adds around over 150,000 people per year. This growth alone will keep most economies ticking over pretty well.

Sorry, but if I had money to invest in a general sense, it would be in Australia before NZ (unless it was some kind of niche investment). :)

Just had to reply to a few points here...

First of all Re: Canadian Military spending - Canada is the country most ensconced in the USA's warm security blanket/bubble/umbrella just read into NORAD and NATO's thinking regarding this doctrine. If another country is going to pay a lot to protect your soverign area as it is in their interests regardless of whether you want to or not then you will by default need to pay less of your own money for that protection... to a similar extent this is true of New Zealand as we fall under the umbrella of Australia's defence thinking and as Australia pays a lot more than us $20 Billion USD per annum vs. approx $1.6 Billion USD per annum we gain a lot of the benefit of that higher defence spending in Australia.

Also I suggest reading up about the United States Air Forces in Europe and United States European Command to understand how the USA underwrites a lot of the defence of Europe - understand that this has as much if not more benefit for the USA than the savings Europe makes in less defence spending but it is a large reason why the figures for European countries in terms of defence spending aren't higher.

I have a few friends that are officers in the New Zealand Army and 2 of them have spent 6 out of the past 18 months in Australia - they also currently have members of the Australian Army working with them here in New Zealand - in a lot of ways the NZDF is integrated with the ADF I believe the current New Zealand defence white paper will recommend increasing this integration.

Regarding Union with Australia there are several stages of soverign Union:

- Preferential Trading area
- Free Trade Area
- Customs Union
- Single Market
- Economic; Political and Currency Union

New Zealand is currently at roughly a Free Trade++ sort of agreement with Australia; there are moves to increase this to a customs union i.e. the removal of the need for passports on trans-tasman travel etc.

The overall goal of the New Zealand government is to obtain Single Economic Market status with Australia; this would mean a lot more integration of labour and tax laws to allow trans-border trade to operate more freely than it currently does ie. mutual recognition of imputation credits; single prospectus issues etc.

New Zealand currently "observes" in many Australian government meetings as though it was a state of Australia; ie. whenever Canberra invites various high ranking state officals to participate in a discussion regarding an issue New Zealand will often be invitied to join as well as observers.

As for adopting the Australian Dollar as New Zealand's currency this would be of almost no benefit for New Zealand - about 80% of NZ's trade is done in currency's other than the AUD so if another currency was to be adopted why not the USD or the EURO or the YEN?! I mean why "trade up" to about the worlds 7th biggest currency from about the 11th when you could trade up to the 1st or 2nd?!

Also I think if that happened it would mean New Zealand becoming another state of Australia; it would be pretty bad for NZ - just look at the integration of Newfoundland into Canada - it didn't work out very well....

As for the prospective economies - the reason Melbourne is growing well is they decided they were sick of being a basket case about 25 years ago and have developed successive plans to implement and help development of Victoria's current vibrant economy; such as focussing on Bio-Technology; IT; and funds management - whilst all the while building a beautiful city for people to live in. Its probably about time NSW did something similar rather than resting on its laurels...

New Zealand about 5 or so years ago realised it was a basket case - similar plans are currently in the works in New Zealand about our development but we are probably 15-20 years behind say Victoria or Melbourne but we should get there one day!

Also regarding those defence spending figures the general rule of thumb is the USA accounts for 50% of the worlds total defence spending figure or roughly spend the equivalent of the entire Australian economy each year on defence - the figure for China's defence spending is also hotly disputed and could be as much as 2.5 times as high as the figure quoted.

My 6.5 cents...:2cents::2cents::2cents:

This possibly warrants another thread as we are moving slightly off topic. New Zealand may still experience something of its own mining boom through the Southern Basin, more discoveries in various exploration fields in Northland, Canterbury and Gisborne. Don't forget Northland and other parts of the country still yield reasonable amounts of mineral deposits. This is according to GNS research. One of the country's founding industries still lies untapped and dormant to some degree. Energy and resources along side other emerging industries would be the icing on the cake. New Zealand need to have industries that will generate billions of dollars annually, tens of billions annually then we can pursue some of our more ambitious undertakings. I support some kind of union with Australia, riding on their "coat tails'' I don't support. With industries that generate tens of billions of dollars the country will have more cloat.:cheers:^^:)

Occured to me that the New Zealanders are quickly wearing out their welcome with Australia(from a defence perspective). You can't continue to spend so little on an interoperable defence capability with Australia and just assume that if a military emergency occurs , no matter how unlikely , that we will simply come running to help.
The idea that nuclear armed/powered American warships are not welcome in NZ is so backward , the rest of the developed world thinks of this policy as an absolute joke..
Probable scenario is more likely that a conflict in our region threatens shipping lanes to and from NZ. I hardly think that Australian military resources will be committed to protecting ships heading in or out of NZ ports. The effect would be crippling very quickly for NZ. Make no mistake about that. So if you think that the NZ government can continue to allow their military strategy to ignore it's obligations - both to Australia , and the NZ public without repercussions you are living in a fools paradise.
The assumption that the "ANZAC" tradition will be enough to protect NZ during the next regional conflict is completely mistaken. Having only 3.5 million people is not an excuse to have no strike airforce. Join the rest of us in the 21st century and stop getting held back by outdated socialist peacenik dogma. If you don't - then one day the population of NZ will pay a very high price.

Occured to me that the New Zealanders are quickly wearing out their welcome with Australia(from a defence perspective). You can't continue to spend so little on an interoperable defence capability with Australia and just assume that if a military emergency occurs , no matter how unlikely , that we will simply come running to help.
The idea that nuclear armed/powered American warships are not welcome in NZ is so backward , the rest of the developed world thinks of this policy as an absolute joke..
Probable scenario is more likely that a conflict in our region threatens shipping lanes to and from NZ. I hardly think that Australian military resources will be committed to protecting ships heading in or out of NZ ports. The effect would be crippling very quickly for NZ. Make no mistake about that. So if you think that the NZ government can continue to allow their military strategy to ignore it's obligations - both to Australia , and the NZ public without repercussions you are living in a fools paradise.
The assumption that the "ANZAC" tradition will be enough to protect NZ during the next regional conflict is completely mistaken. Having only 3.5 million people is not an excuse to have no strike airforce. Join the rest of us in the 21st century and stop getting held back by outdated socialist peacenik dogma. If you don't - then one day the population of NZ will pay a very high price.

Shows how out of date your knowledge of New Zealand is if you're assuming there are 3.5 million people living here.

Nice and peaceful first post for your welcome to the forum by the way.

PS: I would hardly call NZ socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Again, shows how much you know about the country considering you have such strong views on how we should conduct ourselves on the world stage.

Yeah Svarty I notised a bit of anti-Kiwi sentiment there too. :bash:

Shows how out of date your knowledge of New Zealand is if you're assuming there are 3.5 million people living here.

Nice and peaceful first post for your welcome to the forum by the way.

PS: I would hardly call NZ socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Again, shows how much you know about the country considering you have such strong views on how we should conduct ourselves on the world stage.

My apologies for any sense of offence caused. good to get a reaction though - probably exactly what is needed in NZ...
Anyway , NZ population is? ; 4,318,425(http://www.stats.govt.nz/people/population/default.htm)
So I was about 800K wide of the mark , makes no real difference.

I actually said that I thought that NZ had been held back by "socialist peacenik dogma". I never said that NZ was a socialist country. Read a little more slowly without getting too defensive.(If you pardon the pun).
I am not critical of the general NZ population as such. But I am very critical of previous NZ governments.
Please feel free to respond to the 'guts' of my post. I still maintain that if NZ is to be taken seriously or given priority from a military perspective that much more needs to done. Send the right signals - actions speak louder than words.

I believe Denmark has banned nuclear armed warships from it's harbours too for the last 50 years (long before NZ introduced the ban).
the rest of the developed world thinks of this policy as an absolute joke..
oh? I know Australia and the US think so. And who else?
Ierland hasn't had a strike wing in it's air force ever as far as I know.

Okay, to address some of the points in your post:

You can't continue to spend so little on an interoperable defence capability with Australia and just assume that if a military emergency occurs , no matter how unlikely , that we will simply come running to help.

New Zealand currently spends 1% of their GDP on their military. This is in line with military expenditure by Austria, Luxembourg, Japan, Canada and Switzerland. The fact that Australia spends approximately 2.4% of their GDP on their military is unusual - it puts them above most of the European Union (bar France and the UK) in terms of defence expenditure and is therefore an anomaly rather than the norm. Most developed countries worldwide spend less money on defence than this - even China spends less than Australia!

I do agree that procurement of vessels for the protection of NZ waters should definitely be considered of importance to the Royal NZ Navy, however, currently with the economic situation as it is, this is simply not feasible as I'm sure you're aware.

The idea that nuclear armed/powered American warships are not welcome in NZ is so backward , the rest of the developed world thinks of this policy as an absolute joke..

The anti-nuclear stance in NZ is a little paranoid, but understandable given the nuclear weapons tests in the region that have harmed Kiwi servicemen. I don't think it's backwards though, I simply view it as a different way of doing things. Not everyone wants to become the USA's lackey to the extent of Australia in terms of military co-operation and thus we are perfectly entitled to say who can and can't enter our waters.

Finally; as for the possibility of instability in the area - who is seriously going to threaten us? No one has actually been able to answer this question.

I think he was referring to pirates or other nations attacking our shipping for some reason. Like Fijian privateer fishing boats armed with crayfish pots or something. That's all I can possibly think of.

From The US Department of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35852.htm).

New Zealand's top six trading partners (total trade) ending statistical year October 2008 included Australia, the United States, the People's Republic of China, Japan, Singapore, and Germany. Australia continued as New Zealand's principal export market, worth $7.2 billion with exports to Australia rising by 30%. The United States and Japan were New Zealand's second- and third-largest export markets, receiving $2.9 billion and $2.5 billion worth of goods, respectively. New Zealand's fourth-largest export destination was China with exports worth $1.7 billion in statistical year ending October 2008.

The U.S. is the second-largest trading partner for New Zealand, with U.S. goods and services accounting for approximately 9% of all imports. The New Zealand dollar reached a 24-year high of over U.S. $0.80 in July 2007 (the highest since the New Zealand dollar was floated), but as of December 2008 the Kiwi dollar was trading at U.S. $0.55. New Zealand's total imports from the U.S., as of October 2008, amounted to U.S. $3.2 billion. The market-led economy offers many benefits for U.S. exporters and investors. Investment opportunities exist in chemicals, food preparation, finance, tourism, and forest products, as well as in franchising. The best sales and investment prospects are for whole aircraft and aircraft parts, medical or veterinary instruments, motor vehicles, information technology, hotel and restaurant equipment, telecommunications, tourism, franchising, food processing and packaging, and medical equipment. On the agricultural side, the best prospects are for fresh fruit, snack foods, and soybean meal.

Problem for any interfering powers.
How are they going to project force into the Tasman Sea?
Look at a map of the world, that really big blue bit between NZ and the US is called the PACIFIC OCEAN. It has lots of open nothingness between NZ and the US in which to interfere with container shipping. The Axis in WWII couldn't do much to block it, so I'm wandering who could now.

From The US Department of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35852.htm).



Problem for any interfering powers.
How are they going to project force into the Tasman Sea?
Look at a map of the world, that really big blue bit between NZ and the US is called the PACIFIC OCEAN. It has lots of open nothingness between NZ and the US in which to interfere with container shipping. The Axis in WWII couldn't do much to block it, so I'm wandering who could now.

Tasman Sea!!!!???? Pacific Ocean!!!!????
I'm talking about far more important shipping lanes;
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=20&art_id=12013&sid=6665793&con_type=1
You need to understand the importance of global shipping lanes far from the shores of NZ. The impact of a naval blackade or other military intervention in an area like the Malacca Straits - or the Strait of Singapore on NZ is gigantic.
You can make jokes about pirates if you like , but you need to see the importance of things that go on far beyond your horizons.
So my point is still the same. NZ needs to punch well above it's weight and make more of a contribution. Most of the posts coming from the Kiwis in here tend to demonstrate a sense of relying on distance and/or the USA & Australia to take care of your military defense. Thinking about your military commitments in terms of a highly unlikely invasion of NZ is looking at the issue from the wrong point of view.

^^ Problem is, I'm not a Kiwi yet I agree with them. That sort of invalidates your last statement.

^^ Problem is, I'm not a Kiwi yet I agree with them. That sort of invalidates your last statement.

Yeah, well said Svarty, we aren't Kiwi either and we also agree with the Kiwi's - that is one of the many reasons we are here - the most peaceful nation on earth.

Yes, things can change in the future but nobody knows what is in store for us or the rest of the world .... as for living in the now, keep things the way that they are ... thumbs up for New Zealand :cheers:

A blockade in the Malacca Straits or Strait of Singapore would have a gigantic effect on everyone trading through that route. Depending on who's doing the blockade, the rest of the countries in the region would all have to respond. Nobody would be waiting for NZ to send in the cavalry. NZ could send a frigate or 2 as support in such an event.

I have a feeling New Zealand is likely to have more money spent on defence in the future, not sure what time frame it could be a wait and see approach by the government. A stronger military has many benefits aside from meeting a war situation head on. It is also a great way of providing career direction and training in highly skilled occupations for school leavers. The military also provide many vital peacetime functions. It possibly would give New Zealand greater bargaining power when dealing with our trading partners and more respect in the region. The role of border protection is also very crucial. :cheers:

Even if NZ tripled it's defence budget, it would still be a pip-squeak armed forces relatively.
How would that give NZ greater bargaining power with trade partners? Buy our stuff or we'll shoot?

Even if NZ tripled it's defence budget, it would still be a pip-squeak armed forces relatively.
How would that give NZ greater bargaining power with trade partners? Buy our stuff or we'll shoot?

Better than threatening them with the expatriation of Winston Peters to their country like we currently do I guess...

Seriously does anyone honestly think that if NZ was invaded Aus would sit back and do nothing ???..I think not so why would NZ need to increase it's defence budget when doing so wouldn't make much difference anyway since it's GNP is very limited compared to larger economies in the region. Lets face it, NZ is a small country with a small economy and small defence capability. Working with Aus and or other larger 'players' in the region with similar interests within an alliance capacity is probably NZ's only option.

Winston Peters amongst others maybe vying for mayor of the Super Council. Ralph Norris has reportedly declined it. The military provides a strong institution for a country and while I am not talking military junta it's role in getting youth off the streets and into training is useful. Living in Australia you can see how over the last few years the military has given many people a gap year after leaving school it has also acted as a strong fabric of society. I think it is a valuable institution. What New Zealand has done by running it done is a shame. There is the possibility of volitility in the Asian region and it is possible that things maybe not as stable as they are in years to come. :bash:

Defence is bloody expensive these days. It's all IT.

It's not a few thousand school leavers marching around a parade ground because there's a recession on - and there's nothing else to do.

Buying, mainitaining, training, constantly upgrading modern fighter jets etc is lightyears away from having a fleet of Iriquios & Skyhawks back in the 'mechanical' Age.

Personally, I'm all for spending as little as possible, and am comfortable with what level we have. It also has the conveniant side effect of actually keeping us out of stupid wars on the other side of the world.

Just going to play the devil's advocate here, I'm not actually for any sort of unification, though at least we'll get some pretty mountains and you'll get some pretty beaches. But if there ever was a unification, the unified countries could just be called "Australia and New Zealand", just like other (and former) confederations like Serbia and Montenegro or Bosnia and Herzegovina. Just saying.. ;)

^^
Yes, probably my biggest problem with NZ becoming a state of Australia, is that I would have to say I am from Australia when people ask which country am I from.

Just going to play the devil's advocate here, I'm not actually for any sort of unification, though at least we'll get some pretty mountains and you'll get some pretty beaches. But if there ever was a unification, the unified countries could just be called "Australia and New Zealand", just like other (and former) confederations like Serbia and Montenegro or Bosnia and Herzegovina. Just saying.. ;)

:nuts:

Dude, NZ got plenty decent beaches already. But you knew that anyway. Apart form the ones on the main islands themselves http://www.davidwallphoto.com/images/%7B295FFF30-6D46-4306-A787-CDFDA9A41671%7D.JPGtheres also Aitutaki, Tokelau http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/5714/38104/f/196885-Aitutaki-Lagoon--jewel-of-the-Cooks-0.jpg http://www.mugecerman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/sydney_island_nukunonu-tokelau.jpg

That whole Serb/Montenegro Bosnia/Hercegovina thing wont work here. Bad analogy btw, especially in a military thread. Are you proposing a combined military for NZ/Aus?

mmmm... I stayed on Aitutaki 12 years ago. For me it's the ultimate tropical paradise.

Occured to me that the New Zealanders are quickly wearing out their welcome with Australia(from a defence perspective). You can't continue to spend so little on an interoperable defence capability with Australia and just assume that if a military emergency occurs , no matter how unlikely , that we will simply come running to help.
The idea that nuclear armed/powered American warships are not welcome in NZ is so backward , the rest of the developed world thinks of this policy as an absolute joke..
Probable scenario is more likely that a conflict in our region threatens shipping lanes to and from NZ. I hardly think that Australian military resources will be committed to protecting ships heading in or out of NZ ports. The effect would be crippling very quickly for NZ. Make no mistake about that. So if you think that the NZ government can continue to allow their military strategy to ignore it's obligations - both to Australia , and the NZ public without repercussions you are living in a fools paradise.
The assumption that the "ANZAC" tradition will be enough to protect NZ during the next regional conflict is completely mistaken. Having only 3.5 million people is not an excuse to have no strike airforce. Join the rest of us in the 21st century and stop getting held back by outdated socialist peacenik dogma. If you don't - then one day the population of NZ will pay a very high price.

You did well to stuff so much fail into one post. Congrats.

Occurred to me that the New Zealanders are quickly wearing out their welcome with Australia(from a defense perspective). You can't continue to spend so little on an interoperable defense capability with Australia and just assume that if a military emergency occurs , no matter how unlikely , that we will simply come running to help.
The idea that nuclear armed/powered American warships are not welcome in NZ is so backward , the rest of the developed world thinks of this policy as an absolute joke..
Probable scenario is more likely that a conflict in our region threatens shipping lanes to and from NZ. I hardly think that Australian military resources will be committed to protecting ships heading in or out of NZ ports. The effect would be crippling very quickly for NZ. Make no mistake about that. So if you think that the NZ government can continue to allow their military strategy to ignore it's obligations - both to Australia , and the NZ public without repercussions you are living in a fools paradise.
The assumption that the "ANZAC" tradition will be enough to protect NZ during the next regional conflict is completely mistaken. Having only 3.5 million people is not an excuse to have no strike air force. Join the rest of us in the 21st century and stop getting held back by outdated socialist peacenik dogma. If you don't - then one day the population of NZ will pay a very high price.

Our ability to deal with regional security is fine. Unlike Australia, New Zealand has excellent relations with the Pacific and is dealing with the increased influence of the Asian powers through aid provided by Japan, Korea, China and Taiwan to struggling pacific nations. New Zealand's military policy is fine for a country with it's 4.3 million population and resources.

The ANZAC tradition has been dead a long time along with ANZUS. New Zealand's major strength and weakness are the same thing...isolation. The only country who should be shaking in it's boots is Australia..think of all those lovely minerals you have. The Nuclear free policy is the right of a free and democratic nation...so for all your huffing and puffing the reality is we can decide our own destiny according to our own agenda. Contrast that to Australia who used to be Britains bitch and is now the suckling whore of America.

Just wait till China takes over as the worlds super power...can you say Ni hao ma?

Our ability to deal with regional security is fine. Unlike Australia, New Zealand has excellent relations with the Pacific and is dealing with the increased influence of the Asian powers through aid provided by Japan, Korea, China and Taiwan to struggling pacific nations. New Zealand's military policy is fine for a country with it's 4.3 million population and resources.

The ANZAC tradition has been dead a long time along with ANZUS. New Zealand's major strength and weakness are the same thing...isolation. The only country who should be shaking in it's boots is Australia..think of all those lovely minerals you have. The Nuclear free policy is the right of a free and democratic nation...so for all your huffing and puffing the reality is we can decide our own destiny according to our own agenda. Contrast that to Australia who used to be Britains bitch and is now the suckling whore of America.

Just wait till China takes over as the worlds super power...can you say Ni hao ma?

You did well to stuff so much fail into one post. Congrats.

To all the hawks out there.

Since we now have at the helm a pseudo neo con right wing hydrocarbon demented common sense denying government (I know, a lefty command economy rant) where are the squadrons of F16 attack jets, the couple of Aegis equipped anti air cruisers, the long range attack subs and our WASP class amphibious assault ship(s).

I say make S Joyce the minister of making war... I mean defence, and we will get these. You see we have to have them in time for the 2011 RWC, to make our NATO allies tourists feel safe in GODZONE! And think of the safety requirements of all those obese American tourists who will need to drive their rented humvees through the Vic Park tunnel and motorway to get to Eden Park!

Oops, 2 mistakes ^^. 1. Um, is there a motorway to Eden Park? 2. Do Americans really watch/like/know about rugby?

Remember Dubya's motto "Make war, not love."


^^:lol:^^

PPS. If we could afford it, I think a couple dozen F16's and a WASP assault ship would be just so cool to have.

Now this really pisses me off!

Ignorant American officials who spout absolute crap like one new Ivo Daalder, American ambassador to Nato, "God forbid there be a threat directly to New Zealand. Wouldn't it then be good for a country like Holland or Canada or Slovakia or the US to be there [for you]?"

Okay fuckface, what wars/military interventions/police actions have you helped us with or bleed for us?
1. Bourgenville????? (Intelligence only)
2.????
3.????

Now what have we aided you and bleed for you? And by you I also mean your nato allies!
Hmm lets see...
The Boer War
WW1
WW2
Korea
Malaya
Vietnam
Former Yugoslavia
Afghanistan

Now pricks like this need to visit Wikipedia before opening their mouths!! :bash:

On this Labors Goff is in agreement - yes it smacks of Vietnam era Nixonism!

Agreed Kane. Not only is it a highly improbable scenario that we would need military assistance, but its also complete bluff. When I'm free and infront of the computer I'll lay my case.

Our ability to deal with regional security is fine. Unlike Australia, New Zealand has excellent relations with the Pacific and is dealing with the increased influence of the Asian powers through aid provided by Japan, Korea, China and Taiwan to struggling pacific nations. New Zealand's military policy is fine for a country with it's 4.3 million population and resources.

The ANZAC tradition has been dead a long time along with ANZUS. New Zealand's major strength and weakness are the same thing...isolation. The only country who should be shaking in it's boots is Australia..think of all those lovely minerals you have. The Nuclear free policy is the right of a free and democratic nation...so for all your huffing and puffing the reality is we can decide our own destiny according to our own agenda. Contrast that to Australia who used to be Britains bitch and is now the suckling whore of America.
Just wait till China takes over as the worlds super power...can you say Ni hao ma?

Hilarious. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Bad luck my friend;

http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/new-zealand-s-best-friend-3056622

^^
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.

Heres something that might be of interest. Not very in-depth and doesnt really consider military but here we are anyway :) :

www.expatify.com/advice/10-best-places-to-live-for-escaping-world-conflict.html/

^^
That points out precisely why we don't need a huge military.

^^
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.

You should probably look at the politics behind Australia's defense before making such accusations.

It's not like we have any big nations with a strong military nearby to call on if ever we went to war - America's the only nation with the capacity to help us from the other side of the World with its bases throughout Asia and Australia. Hence why we allow them to have spy bases etc. here.

Imagine if Australia fell to a foreign power - then where would New Zealand be? It'd have no economy and no ability to defend itself. Be thankful for our military strength.

^^

Utterly inconceivable. First of all there is no Military in the Asia Pacific region that has the external force projection capabilities to attack Australia. China maybe in the future but there is no possible scenario where they would consider attacking Oz. Even if down the line they have both the political will (Why bother when they can just buy up Oz resources legally) and military means, such move would inevitably bring the US into any conflict. The American's huge stockpile of wacky nukes and a leadership that gets a hardon for war makes any potential scrap with the US a futile effort.

This touches on a point I never got round to making before - NZ is in the same position in that there is no conceivable threat (unless the ozzies get real thirsty) in the region. The Obama administration saying "help us or we may not help you" is straight up bullshit. First of all we have helped in a number of times in a direct manner, and still do in an indirect manner via our assistance UK-USA treaty (same as oz) gathering intel. The only possible situation where NZ would be under threat is another world war scenario. Should such a debacle break out NZ would never be more than a secondary strategic target and it's a fair bet, given the stated nuclear strategies of the likely players, the planet would be a burnt out cinder before anyone got close to NZ. As old Einstein said - , “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Exactly Neitzsche. No one in that region could invade, or want to invade Australia. But what I would like to see is the NZDF having a better trained force with much more modern equipment and some equipment that is 100% made in New Zealand. I mean, if countries such as Singapore, Australia even Indonesia can produce indeginous armoured vehicles, then why can't we? It doesn't have to be big or anything but something like a light truck or a high mobility vehicle to put systems like our Mistral low air defence missiles on. Somalis have a knack for taking a truck or pickup and bolting a machine gun or a cannon to it so it has some offensive and defensive capabilities. I also think that the NZDF needs to also concentrate on the Pacific region and help provide stability, so some Internal Security Vehicles (ISV) would be nice.
However, I might be wrong. I am only 16.

^^ With regards to an indigenous NZ design for a light protected vehicle, the demand wouldn’t be high enough to justify the development and production costs. As you rightly stated, many other countries are capable of designing their own vehicles, thus export possibilities are slim. Any NZDF order would be in the low hundreds at best (therefore costly), and these would require support throughout their lifespan. Easier for NZ to tap into the much larger supply chain of an ally like Australia, which will be operating thousands of the type of vehicle I think you’re talking about. The difference is like finding spare parts for a Ferrari instead of a Ford, without the benefit of owning a Ferrari. The NZ army currently uses the Pinzgauer for this type of thing, which is basically just an unarmoured truck and totally inappropriate for the role in my opinion. However without an expansion of the NZ army it’s hard to justify the purchase of more capable armoured vehicle like Australia’s Bushmaster or even the concept Hawkei (like a humvee, but better).

On another note, some of the opinions on this thread honestly confuse me. Some portray the only possible threat to NZ as a massive armada singling out NZ alone and say, 'thats never gonna happen so why bother with a military?' A country doesn’t need to invade you and triumphantly wave their flag over your house of parliament to damage your political interests. They can shut down your most important sea lanes from 3000km away without moving a single ship in NZ's direction. That’s one reason why half the RNZAF Skyhawk fleet was based in Australia.

I believe NZ can and should have a stronger military. This doesn’t entail buying Wasp-class LHDs or Aegis-equipped cruisers at all – suggesting these are necessary for a stronger NZDF is nothing but a straw man argument.
- Start by joining the RAN’s future frigate program (as soon as it starts), and commit to 3. This is enough to sustain the deployment of 1 frigate abroad and 1 at home, and the RNZN will have a ship capable of defending itself for once.
- A third infantry battalion. As above, necessary to support a continued overseas deployment of one battalion.
- Attack helicopters. Modern fighter aircraft aren’t really an option currently, but attack helicopters can provide air cover as well. Go with the Tiger to leech off the Australian supply chain. Something like $50m each, but can be deployed from the HMNZS Canterbury. 6 would do the trick, with an additional 4 NH90s to give the RNZAF something of a respectable helicopter force.

The first two points here aren’t extreme at all, as they basically allow the NZDF to perform the sort of duties being currently asked of them without stretching itself the way it is. There are more options available but they will depend on how the new Aus-NZ defence agreements work out.

I imagined something small, but able to carry troops with better armour protection. The armament I think could easily be a 7.62mm or 12.7mm machine gun. And it could use commercially available components where possible, like many countries have done with the Unimog chassis and engines.

hmm... closer to top or bottom pic?

Bushmaster
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/9495/bushmaster4.jpg (http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bushmaster4.jpg/)

Hawkei
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/4885/hawkei2.jpg (http://img36.imageshack.us/i/hawkei2.jpg/)

These are the two aussie designs i mentioned. Top one carries 9, gun ring for 5.56mm or 7.62mm MGs, roughly 14 tonnes empty. 737 in service or ordered for the australian army, final orders may tip 1000.

Hawkei carries 5 including driver, 7 tonnes. Dont know much else, hasnt been put into production. If it wins the design run-off, 1300 units for the australian army.


Just to put it into perspective, this is what NZ operates:
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1701/pinzguaer.jpg (http://img137.imageshack.us/i/pinzguaer.jpg/)

Yes, thats canvas on the back there.

Different roles. That's a bit like showing an Australian tank, and then a New Zealand APC. It's not putting it into perspective at all. If they DID have to use something to fulfill that role, it'd be a LAV, not a Pinzgauer, which would frankly be suicide.

As you say though, NZ doesn't really seem to have anything in the high-mobility armoured vehicle category.

I guess it is unfair to compare a PMV with a utility-type ATV. However as new zealand doesnt have anything between the Pinzgauer and NZLAV, the NZ army is forced to use the 'pinny' in a strikingly similar way to how the australian army operates the bushmaster. From the NZ army website:

"The Pinzgauer is an off-the shelf light military vehicle that will be required to carry out command and control, liaison, replenishment, special force, evacuation and administrative tasks. The vehicles require a high degree of off-road capability in order to operate in concert with the Light Armoured Vehicle (NZLAV) and Unimog trucks and will have similar off-road capabilities."


Though, I was a little misleading when I implied all the Pinzgauers had canvas, 60 units are supposedly armoured.

I acknowledge that at the moment the NZ army isn't large enough to warrant a new vehicle type like a PMV. It would have to replace something - i've heard comments to the effect that the government feels there are too many NZLAVs, anyone confirm?

We probably do have a few too many LAV's, the US Stryker has multiple version, all based on the LAV III, I don't see any reason why we couldn't convert some of ours. Maybe a mix of mobile gun system or morter carriers.

Or convert some Pinzgauers. Maybe mount the Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) systems or our Mistral low air defence systems on one as a test bed.

Anyone hear that some of our troops were fired on in Afghanistan and they had to fire back before being rescued by helicopter. Where's the SAS when you need them?

What really surprised me is that our guys in Afghanistan aren't using the armoured Pinzgauers we were supposed to be buying for overseas missions. Did we actually buy the armoured Pinzgauers? Maybe it's time to send over some of the LAV's 5, or so should be more than enough to protect our boys when they are on patrol in remote areas.

hmm... closer to top or bottom pic?

Bushmaster
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/9495/bushmaster4.jpg (http://img229.imageshack.us/i/bushmaster4.jpg/)

Hawkei
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/4885/hawkei2.jpg (http://img36.imageshack.us/i/hawkei2.jpg/)

These are the two aussie designs i mentioned. Top one carries 9, gun ring for 5.56mm or 7.62mm MGs, roughly 14 tonnes empty. 737 in service or ordered for the australian army, final orders may tip 1000.

Hawkei carries 5 including driver, 7 tonnes. Dont know much else, hasnt been put into production. If it wins the design run-off, 1300 units for the australian army.


Just to put it into perspective, this is what NZ operates:
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1701/pinzguaer.jpg (http://img137.imageshack.us/i/pinzguaer.jpg/)

Yes, thats canvas on the back there.

ROFLMAO. That's hilarious. The Hawkei design is fantastic, I was reading about it a while ago.

I can just imagine them being sold for civilian use, carrying hordes of drunk women around on Hen's nights, much like the Hummer.

Interesting discussion further back - why would anyone attack aussie in the first place - or have the power to do so? John Marsden and the Tomorow series springs to mind - where australia gets invaded...the reason? The invaders home country is over populated-and this scenario does not seem so far fetched as the discussion makes it out to be... Indonesia seems a likely country along with other asian powers - it has a HUGE population for such a small grouping of islands - It IS overpopulated and has a massive military power, and being so close to Australia- not hard to imagine. Nz does need better gear though- always thought the military needs decent TANKS if the going to be in a place like Afgan.

I read those books as a kid. The dumb thing was, they never said who the invaders were...

Why would NZ need tanks to take to Afghanistan?

I read those books as a kid. The dumb thing was, they never said who the invaders were...
I do believe theyre making a movie of it... with the intent of not only hiding the invading country's identity but also their ethnicity :gaah:


Interesting discussion further back - why would anyone attack aussie in the first place - or have the power to do so? John Marsden and the Tomorow series springs to mind - where australia gets invaded...the reason? The invaders home country is over populated-and this scenario does not seem so far fetched as the discussion makes it out to be... Indonesia seems a likely country along with other asian powers - it has a HUGE population for such a small grouping of islands - It IS overpopulated and has a massive military power, and being so close to Australia- not hard to imagine. Nz does need better gear though- always thought the military needs decent TANKS if the going to be in a place like Afgan.
In Indonesia's case, a massive military =/= strong military. Their air force and navy is seriously outmatched by the RAAF and RAN (whatever carlo kopp might think), and their army while large is poorly equipped and trained. Not even a main battle tank to their name. They might be a problem a few decades down the road, when their economy might start to catch up to ours. Our problem is, australia's army is too small to take and hold any serious territory, so all we could do is knock out them out from long range via airstrike/cruise missiles.

That aside, they could attack. Outmatched or not the indonesian military isnt too fond of us, and the indonesian government can barely keep them in check. If the military overthrows the government we could be in for a scrap, which is why australia props up the indonesian government where necessary, to make sure the balance of power stays in their favour.

As for tanks, not for NZ i think. Not much use in afghanistan except in helmand province, where the canadians and danish gave their leopards a spin. Not much use for defence - once an invader lands something worth shooting at on NZ soil the game is pretty much over. Good for offence, but only in numbers and only when you have the means to move it. Some decent IFVs might be worth looking into, maybe CV-90 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90) or my favourite, germany's Puma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_(IFV)).

^^ Well constructed post and argument hangman :yes:

It makes a lot of sense for us to maintain air and naval superiority over South East Asian countries. And you never know when a well funded, well equipped military is going to come in handy.

As for tanks, not for NZ i think. Not much use in afghanistan except in helmand province, where the canadians and danish gave their leopards a spin. Not much use for defence - once an invader lands something worth shooting at on NZ soil the game is pretty much over. Good for offence, but only in numbers and only when you have the means to move it. Some decent IFVs might be worth looking into, maybe CV-90 or my favourite, germany's Puma.

Well, we did use Centurions as MBT's as well as M41 Walker Bulldogs and Scorpions to fulfill our light and medium tank capabilities. We could use Israeli Merkava tanks which suit our rocky terrain, have just enough range to get from, say, Nelson to Timaru and can transport infantry as the engine and transmission are in the front of the vehicle.

Other than that, I like the idea of an IFV but isn't that why we have the LAV's in the first place?

I have another suggestion. Get some Landcruisers and strap some rocket launchers and HMG's to them or bring back the M113's and fit them with some Javelin ATGM systems and use them as dedicated anti-tank/IFV/AFV missile systems.

NZ could use merkavas but shouldnt - its overkill for the south pacific, about the only place NZ could project power on its own (tanks or no tanks). In any case you wouldnt be able to afford a deployable number; eg Australia owns 59 M1A1s, which is only enough to keep around 20 deployed at all times. I could be wrong, but that makes sense considering how many need to be held back for training, maintenance etc. Its one reason why our tank regiment has such a hard time with recruiting - low to zero chance of deployment.

As for defence, rest assured anybody invading NZ would have the air to themselves and would simply bomb any tanks to pieces before they landed a single one of their own.

The NZLAV is rather similar to an IFV, theres no need to own both types. In the NZ army the LAV acts as either an overpowered 'battle taxi' or an underpowered IFV - a compromise due to lack of funding really. I think it would be ideal if there would be two types, a proper IFV like the Puma for direct combat, and an M113-like APC (only not the M113) for ferrying troops around the warzone.

Air force Chopper has crashed on the Kapiti Coast. TVNZ reporting 3 people have died. For this to happen on Anzac Day is even more sad. RIP.

The dawn service in Cathedral Square was really good, am glad we went. Never been to one before. The gun salute and bomber flying so low overhead were pretty moving. My son enjoyed it too. He went munyuk on the Anzac biscuits.

Short Range transport aircraft of Govt. shopping list
Source: NZ Herald
Link:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10643230

The Government is looking at buying short-range passenger aircraft which could be used to transport the Prime Minister and other dignitaries and would plug a capacity gap in the Defence Force.

Potential planes could be twin-engine turbo-propeller aircraft such as the Dash 8 Q300 or the Casa 235.

The Air Force has five Beech King Air B200s that are sometimes used for VIP Transport, and the fact that these are due to be replaced makes the purchase of other short-range planes more likely.

The capacity gap was identified in the current white paper review of the Defence Force that is due to report back in September.

"One of the important parts of the review was to identify whether the Defence Force was meeting the needs of the nation, but also where there are gaps," Defence Minister Wayne Mapp said.

"There is a lack of short-range maritime control - that's a two-engine aircraft to patrol or survey or that could fly to a South Pacific nation - and similarly there's a gap around a lower capacity aircraft at the transport end.

"We've identified the gap in principle - actually filling it is a follow-on exercise that will take some time."

Dr Mapp said he had yet to consider how many or what type of aircraft would be ideal, but the common choices were the Dash 8 Q300 or the Casa 235, which can carry between 40 and 80 passengers.

"That's the size and nature of aircraft that other countries use to cover the gap."

The aircraft would also be used as VIP transport for the Prime Minister or other dignitaries. Currently ministers can use the King Airs - passenger capacity of seven - though their primary purpose is for advanced pilot training.

From the 2008 election to April this year, the King Airs made a total of seven flights for the Prime Minister or other ministers, clocking 15 hours in total. The King Airs fly about 3000 hours a year.

"The King Airs are due for replacement, and planning was under way for this before the Defence Review began last year," Dr Mapp said. "The leases are now on short-term rollover, and a replacement decision is on hold pending the white paper."

It is understood the Dash 8 or the Casa 235 can also be used for advanced pilot training.

Australia has two VIP transport options for their Prime Minister and ministers: a Challenger CL-604 which holds nine passengers and two Boeing 737s which have two conference tables and can carry 30 passengers.


So heres what the Government wants:
Bomardier Q300 which went out of production this year:
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/bombardier_q300/images/Q300_1.jpg

CASA-235:
http://americasprogram.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/merida-casa-2353.jpg

Both are good but I could recommend these:
Embraer E190 jet: Can do what those planes can do above and fly greater distances
http://www.skycontrol.net/UserFiles/Image/BusinessGA_img/200804/200804-embraer-190-jet-120-etops.jpg

An Airbus A316:
http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00002955.jpg

Any suggestions?

Well for starters there is no such thing as a A316, the smallest Airbus is an A318. The CASA 235 would be a good idea, it would replace the Andovers which were not replaced, it has a ramp, a light transport which could take some of the roles of the C130 would be good.

Haha, that's a good Photoshop job

KIwiguy - Who do you think you are "Recommending" planes for the defence force? Your ideals and opinions are completly redundant - Nobody with any power is going to listen to your recommendations - you are a dreamer! Let the people who know what they are doing to do there job - there is probably no budget to justify a jet - so think about what you are saying before you go around other peoples professions and tell them how it is done or should be done. We all know the minister of defence is not going to listen to YOU so why bother saying it? Why? because you are a nobody in the area of politics and mililtary.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/7466/chillpill2.jpg (http://img188.imageshack.us/i/chillpill2.jpg/)

I recommend you take one.

Damn, I didn't notice the photoshop.

NapierMan- what would you recommend then if your are such a authority on military affairs. A converted civilian jet can lift heavier and bigger payloads and go to almost any Pacific island with fuel left over for the trip back.

Not a budget my arse. If the government can spend 30 million on a shitty pavilion in Shanghai then they can afford to buy a couple of planes.

Besides, our defence force is completely inept in everyway possible.

It's hardly inept, in fact I'd say it's more than adequate. What are we doing with those 150-odd LAVs for instance?

Our helicopter force is inadequate though, the air force had nothing that could even lift their own wreckage out of that gully. I think those unimogs could do with replacing too.

More than adequate? What do we actually use those LAV's for anyway, apart from shows and the odd exercise? What's the point of sending troops to Afghanistan if we aren't allowed to shoot the enemy? Just my opinion, but if the Kiwi personnel in Afghanistan aren't there to fight the Taliban, then they can come home.

Yes, we desperately need new helicopters but is it really cheaper to buy a brand new helicopter and use it for spare parts? But why did we mothball the Aermacchis despite them being in service for less than eight years?

It's hardly inept, in fact I'd say it's more than adequate. What are we doing with those 150-odd LAVs for instance?

Our helicopter force is inadequate though, the air force had nothing that could even lift their own wreckage out of that gully. I think those unimogs could do with replacing too.

We only have 105 LAVs, we can hardly crew them let alone 45 more.

New helicopters are on the way, there is a tender out at the moment to replace the mogs.

Judging by some of the comments on this thread, NZ doesn't need any military at all.

Maybe just a robust coast guard--ships + air patrol, protecting our quotas from fishing vessels and wandering ships.

An army? No. Why? Seriously, where's the threat?

Right?

THE AUSSIES ARE THE THREAT!

I'm a spy for Krudd

Judging by some of the comments on this thread, NZ doesn't need any military at all.

Maybe just a robust coast guard--ships + air patrol, protecting our quotas from fishing vessels and wandering ships.

An army? No. Why? Seriously, where's the threat?

Right?

;)
6hlFcnkGY-o

Seriously, where's the threat?

Well, I'd like to see Bananarama in Fiji get his hiney kicked, maybe a decent airforce to help out with aid relief. Who knows. Maybe Tamaki would get a bit cocky and take over the government if there wasn't anything to stop him.

THE AUSSIES ARE THE THREAT!

I'm a spy for Krudd

I think the bigger threat is us falsifying Kiwi passports so our spies can travel overseas, as our spy agency confirmed this week.

I think the bigger threat is us falsifying Kiwi passports so our spies can travel overseas, as our spy agency confirmed this week.

The bastards.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10648641

Poll on Bringing the troops home from Afghanistan

Suprising? Not really. Love your little display pic Indictable :cheers:

Haha I was just casually searching for the skyline and came across a photobucket one, it wouldn't load then I went to the album/photostream whatever photobucket calls it and I'm like... CHCartel... familiar... Wondered how long it would take ^_^

Well, I'd like to see Bananarama in Fiji get his hiney kicked, maybe a decent airforce to help out with aid relief. Who knows. Maybe Tamaki would get a bit cocky and take over the government if there wasn't anything to stop him.

I posted that a while back, but seriously, we can sit here thinking we're not involved in the world, or we can work out how effective we can be with our limited resources.

My policy: a very well trained specialist force.

A navy is essential due to out geography, but special forces that can be injected where and when we need them is also essential. And the army and air force should be subject to that intent.

The concept of a "defence force" is good, but we should take that to its logical conclusion and simply have a marine-type setup. I'd like to see a set of special forces, SAS, groups with good hardware that can be used as needs arise.

I'd also like to see the occasional visit from a US carrier, just to stir up the slackers. Call me old-fashioned.

we do need a better equipped navy, always thought our two frigates looked puny, we could do with a battleship i think, for presence in the pacific. someone actually needs to invade fiji- be it australia our god forbid and heres hoping, nz.

Hasn't the precedent been set for "toppling dictatorial regimes" in Iraq and Afghanistan? When external forces attempt to influence internal politics one only ends up with a mess of epic proportions. The best way for a country to topple a dictator is always at the grass roots level. Look at the way in which South Africa came out of Apartheid. Due to sanctions against them and the general passive-aggressive nature of the international community towards them, things changed. The best we can do for Fiji is provide help to the people and let them decide their own future.

Hasn't the precedent been set for "toppling dictatorial regimes" in Iraq and Afghanistan? When external forces attempt to influence internal politics one only ends up with a mess of epic proportions. The best way for a country to topple a dictator is always at the grass roots level. Look at the way in which South Africa came out of Apartheid. Due to sanctions against them and the general passive-aggressive nature of the international community towards them, things changed. The best we can do for Fiji is provide help to the people and let them decide their own future.

Totally agree with this..:cheers:

In light of what has happened in the Christchurch quake, it is realistic to expect that further capacity maybe added to the current defence force. A recent article on 60 minutes Australia has confirmed that the reason Australia is spending big on defence is to counter a potential Chinese threat, you could probably throw in Indonesia as well. I can genuinely see a need arising for bolstering up our defence in the not too unforseeable future. The first maybe a fighter jet capacity which has been mooted.

No. No army or airforce we could ever muster would provide more than a minor speedbump, even if China did have a blue water navy. And did actually want to attack us. A navy would be more useful but we can't afford that while we don't need it.

As for the Christchurch quake, I'm not sure I follow?

I just think it has highlighted the need to have a good army on hand and it may mean they are given more resources in future to handle something even bigger. It is inevitable that defence will eventually receive more funding.

In light of what has happened in the Christchurch quake, it is realistic to expect that further capacity maybe added to the current defence force. A recent article on 60 minutes Australia has confirmed that the reason Australia is spending big on defence is to counter a potential Chinese threat, you could probably throw in Indonesia as well. I can genuinely see a need arising for bolstering up our defence in the not too unforseeable future. The first maybe a fighter jet capacity which has been mooted.
^^
Lol, I watched "Tomorrow When the War Began" the other day, even though the author of the book, John Marsden never mentioned who the invaders of aus were, the movie could not hide their identity, so they went for the obvious - Asian.

:horse:

I just think it has highlighted the need to have a good army on hand and it may mean they are given more resources in future to handle something even bigger. It is inevitable that defence will eventually receive more funding.

I think a F35 squadron and some Apachi helicopters would be exactly what Christchurch needs.

Really impressed with the troops on the streets here in Christchurch. They definately are a reassuring sign. Sure the police are appreciating their presence too, giving them a break from patrolling the cbd.

Probably some sort of supply ship like the Tobruk which was offered to us, would be useful in an emergency. As to referring to a fighter squadron being of any relevance to the quake, that is not what I was getting at, that is a separate issue. More spending may include more Tiger helicopters which do an important job in disaster zones, possibly a replacement for the Hercules.

...are often confused about military stuff.

We live in this faraway place thinking it's all a bit academic.

The US are, and Britain before them was, by and large benevolent. But maybe 10 years from now when the Chinese have firmly established themselves in various places, we may wonder if sit-back-and-wait was a good policy.

China is playing a smart game. They let the US guard the trade routes with their carrier battle groups, etc., but will they be so accommodating when they--perhaps--have the upper hand?

Methinks not.

This is a subject which has come up many times on this thread. North Korea and Myanmur are two countries which clearly pose a security threat in the region and so too does Indonesia who are basically being proped up by Aussie aid. Possibly a larger ready reaction force maybe implemented in the form of more SaS regiments and as said earlier an amphibious troop carrier of some sort maybe recquired. While New Zealand is never going to be a military super power it does need to support its allies effectively and to do this an increase in defence spending is necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing something like this being reviewed or looked at by governments in the not too distant future.

Probably some sort of supply ship like the Tobruk which was offered to us, would be useful in an emergency. As to referring to a fighter squadron being of any relevance to the quake, that is not what I was getting at, that is a separate issue. More spending may include more Tiger helicopters which do an important job in disaster zones, possibly a replacement for the Hercules.

Surely not tigers, those are attack helos. NH90s on the other hand, would be very useful in disaster scenarios both domestic and foreign. And if NZ must insist on operating such a small infantry regiment, it should be as mobile as possible. More helos would be great for this.

Though I've always thought tigers would be a good choice for NZ, as a combat air force now appears off the table for good. That way, if necessary the army can operate with some kind of air support without relying on foreign help. RNZAF already operates helos so its not the big jump that jet fighters would be, and unlike fighters they could operate from the Canterbury or one of the RAN's future LHDs, so theres flexibility. They are expensive though, no escaping that.

I don't think the government would purchase new helicopters on the basis that they would use the "more costs than benefits" excuse they always seem to have when defence matters are concerned.

given the types of commitments we undertake, attack helicopters are a fantasy. there's absolutely no point to them other than as a fantasy status symbol.

for both peacekeeping, and for any future regional conflict, it's best to concentrate on a few things well rather than concentrate on having every piece of hardware. it's much easier for us to integrate our forces effectively into larger multinational forces if we're well funded and well trained in a few areas rather than poorly trained and funded across too many areas.

NH-90, that was what I meant to say as I was getting the Tiger confused with the NH-90. An increase in NH-90s and probably a few more heavy lifting helicopters. Maybe some secondhand Stallions off the Americans.

NH-90, that was what I meant to say as I was getting the Tiger confused with the NH-90. An increase in NH-90s and probably a few more heavy lifting helicopters. Maybe some secondhand Stallions off the Americans.

Stallions are out of production now? I think
Chinook's would be a better heavy lift option
Im still not convinced the NH-90 is the best fit for Army...yes for the Canturbury.....

It would of been better ( in my opinion ) to aquire 4 NH-90 for navy
10 Blackhawks and 6 Chinooks for army.
300 million could of bought those amount Heli's for the army inclusive of spares...ex USA Surplus..re built airframes

^^ Why not convinced with the nh90? Has bigger troop capacity, heavier lift, its faster, longer range, higher service ceiling than the blackhawk....

We have (supposedly) 8 NH-90's in service mainly because Australia has them. We could also have Blackhawks because Australia has them as well. Stallions are getting a bit old in the tooth in terms of age, as most of the ones in service are well over 20 years old or the same age as our Iroquois helicopters. I'm surprised we didn't consider the EH-101 Merlin helicopters since they are very close to the NH-90's in size and payload.

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?

Edit: double post.

^^ Why not convinced with the nh90? Has bigger troop capacity, heavier lift, its faster, longer range, higher service ceiling than the blackhawk....

True.
More of a numbers game.
We can only afford 8...if you take 4 out with the canturbury for a mission...NZ only has 4 helicopters of quality lift at its disposal...i.e we would be stretched to contain a disaster relief in NZ/Pacific with an existing deployment off shore

The chinook is a work horse...relativily cheap and still in production ..with the heavy lift requiered
Blackhawks would give you easy personal movement