NZ | Military Thread

[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; 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

[Drunkill]

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.

[metroman]

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.

[metroman]

Saab Gripen from Sweden.

[whizz_pat]

Is this necessary?
Budget 09: Defence Force receives $52m boost

Originally Posted by NZHerald

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.

[Cartel]

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?

[metroman]

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

[Kane007]

Originally Posted by Cartel

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?

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???).

[jarbury]

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.

[whizz_pat]

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

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by whizz_pat

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

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

[jarbury]

I bet svartopia would have good trains.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by jarbury

I bet svartopia would have good trains.

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

(And I'll stop spamming now)

[Richard7666]

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.

[Kane007]

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

[deepred]

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.

[Kane007]

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

[Blah]

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?

[metroman]

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.

[Skyline Myline]

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???).


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