NZ | Military Thread

[jarbury]

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.

[south]

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.

[Kane007]

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).

[Neitzsche]

Originally Posted by south

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.

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.

[Kane007]

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.

[KIWIKAAS]

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.

[Kane007]

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 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 .

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

[KIWIKAAS]

Freedom!
We are the land of the free. We have guns!

[Blah]

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.

[Svartmetall]

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.

[KIWIKAAS]

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

[Kane007]

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.

[QinBriz]

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.

[KIWIKAAS]

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.

[Neitzsche]

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

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



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



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



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



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



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.

[Blah]

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.

[metroman]

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

[Neitzsche]

Originally Posted by Blah

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.

[KIWIKAAS]

Originally Posted by Neitzsche

Sukhoi Su-37



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.

[Kiwi_Rich]

Originally Posted by metroman

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