Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
bunumuring
Topic Author
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Australia NZ and PNG latest

Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:05 pm

Hey guys,

Australia: orders for 13 x Seahawk Romeos to replace Taipans plus 29 x Apache Es to replace Tigers… I haven’t seen anything on a.net about these orders. Anyone know if the Bell 429 has been confirmed for the SAS order?

NZ: mention elsewhere on a.net that the RNZAF may be looking for two ‘newer’ 757s as stop-gap replacements for the ageing current 757s… anyone know any more about this? And what about the Seasprite replacements: I’ve heard that NZ may be interested in some ex-Aussie Taipans?!?

PNG: for months I have seen the PNGDF Falcon 900 parked at SYD, but curiously in slightly different locations every time. Does anyone know if it’s up for sale or just making lots of flights into SYD?

Thanks in advance for any info In response.
Take care
Bunumuring
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Wed Jul 13, 2022 10:55 pm

bunumuring wrote:
Hey guys,

Australia: orders for 13 x Seahawk Romeos to replace Taipans plus 29 x Apache Es to replace Tigers… I haven’t seen anything on a.net about these orders. Anyone know if the Bell 429 has been confirmed for the SAS order?

NZ: mention elsewhere on a.net that the RNZAF may be looking for two ‘newer’ 757s as stop-gap replacements for the ageing current 757s… anyone know any more about this? And what about the Seasprite replacements: I’ve heard that NZ may be interested in some ex-Aussie Taipans?!?

PNG: for months I have seen the PNGDF Falcon 900 parked at SYD, but curiously in slightly different locations every time. Does anyone know if it’s up for sale or just making lots of flights into SYD?

Thanks in advance for any info In response.
Take care
Bunumuring



I think the requirement for a fleet of light helicopters to enhance the ADF Special Operations Aviation Capability as advised in the 2016 Defence White Paper has been dropped with the announcement of the Army Taipans being replaced by Blackhawks

https://www.defensenews.com/global/2021 ... elicopters.

In regards to NZ and 757 have no idea, it would be almost certain that NZ will raid the ADF spares stocks for NH90 have not heard of anything concrete about extra flyable cabs but would be a good opportunity to expand the fleet as it is being worked extremally hard with so few numbers . another 8 would be the best outcome but highly unlikely they may take 2-3 but have not heard anything officially

NZGov have announced a Defence Policy Review which could mean anything in NZ context

https://www.defence.govt.nz/what-we-do/ ... %20Defence.

The PNG aircraft have no idea
 
bunumuring
Topic Author
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Wed Jul 13, 2022 11:43 pm

Hey mate,
Thanks for your response.
If NZ intend keeping their NH90s I hope Australia and NZ come to a great deal over the ex-ADF ones.
Not sure what will happen with the soon-to-be ex-ADF Tigers though… perhaps France, Germany or Spain would buy them for spares?
Take care,
Bunumuring
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:16 am

bunumuring wrote:
If NZ intend keeping their NH90s I hope Australia and NZ come to a great deal over the ex-ADF ones.

That would be ideal, with RNZAF having such a small fleet the cost savings in ditching the aircraft early might not have the same weight of the business case for AusGov so the cost savings must have been considerable to buy another new fleet of Blackhawks with the ratio is 5-1 in aircraft between the two nations.
bunumuring wrote:
Not sure what will happen with the soon-to-be ex-ADF Tigers though… perhaps France, Germany or Spain would buy them for spares?

That’s a given conclusion for tiger operators; Germany is having a hard time with airworthy airframes availability but it’s only a short-term fix.


I had a quick look into see what was happening with 757. Its highly likely they have had their avionics upgrade with Thomas Global upgrading the flight displays with the aircraft set to solider on into the late 2020’s
https://www.overtdefense.com/2022/02/18 ... 757-fleet/

Its wishful thinking on my part but as part of strategy and planning of future capability, I am hoping that they do buy 8 NH90 cabs off the ADF plus spare holdings. But it is a pity that they cannot afford to replace them along with the ADF deal (Blackhawks)and instead of getting the Apache like the ADF and get 4x DAP kits.

If ever the NZGov does get around to replacing HMNZS Canterbury with the proposed JATF and with something like an Endurance 170 a Seahawk/Blackhawk combination along with the replacement for Sea Sprite with Romeo will have a huge benefit to RNZAF/RNZN would be ideal for commonality
https://tacairnet.com/2016/07/12/lockhe ... he-market/
http://nighthawk.nz/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=111

I would also like to see the 757 replaced with 3x A330 MRTT for use as VIP medevac troop lift etc as I believe this would increase the inoperability between the RNZAF/RAAF which increases the capability between AU/NZ in a more non-kinetic military action way which would appease the NZGov without resorting to more hardened air force such as an ACF (ideally id like to see 16x F35A)

With NZGov committed to C130J hopefully we can see them modified to accept an AAR capability to mate with the MRTT ideally id like to see an increase to 8 airframes it gives more options to NZG on how it responds to events within the region as well as its normal operating tempo

P8 Poseidon this is just ridicules 4 airframes this needs to be 6 airframes 8 ideally. With China becoming more and more active in the SWP these will be greatly needed

Also, the RNZAF needs a strategic lifter, they missed the opportunity with the C17 white tails I would like to see 4x A400m for outsize cargo lift

I think I just bankrupted the NZG without really considering either Navy or Army needs
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:31 pm

Unless OZ repurposes the Canberra/Adelaide for F35 operations, I don't really see the need for NZ to have an LHD. Their entire army has only 2 light infantry battalions and one light armor one (LAV). For the same reason, I don't think they need strategic airlift. I do agree with you on the P8, though. I wish they'd do what they've always done (until now) and piggyback a frigate order onto the Aussie one. The MEKOs aren't getting any younger...
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Thu Jul 14, 2022 3:02 pm

johns624 wrote:
Unless OZ repurposes the Canberra/Adelaide for F35 operations, I don't really see the need for NZ to have an LHD. Their entire army has only 2 light infantry battalions and one light armor one (LAV). For the same reason, I don't think they need strategic airlift. I do agree with you on the P8, though. I wish they'd do what they've always done (until now) and piggyback a frigate order onto the Aussie one. The MEKOs aren't getting any younger...

I would have to disagree with you there, a platoon lift requires 3x NH-90 a pocket LHD gives the flexibility to move them concurrently. Plus, the ability has spots available for other purpose if needed, cross decking a CH-47F at the same time perhaps?

Just because the overall size of the NZ regular Army is small does not mean other nations forces will not be embarked, for instance the current Rimpac exc has a Tongan platoon embedded with the ADF, or you could have a joint ANZAC task group to fill out the ship. What also gets looked over for the ADF to conduct a full scale Amphibious Ready Group requires both Canberra class plus the Bay. If the ADF is sending a ARG I bet my balls that NZDF is involved so having space for 10 additional helicopters will come in very handy

On the strategic lifter the NZDF is a semi frequent customer for RAAF you can move 3X NH90 with a C17 NZGOV missed that option and the RAAF have moved the on numerous occasions for the RNZAF. A NH90 won’t fit in a C130J whilst I’m not 100% sure if A400 can move two or not, a A400 can move 2x NZLAV/Bushmasters.

While id like to see RNZN buy some Hunters, I think the price might be off putting.

A what if scenario is that the RNZN buy the 3x Hobart AWD so the RAN could increase the capability of a Hunter MKII with increased VLS to 64MK41 using the mission bay space but by the time that happens they would most likely be 20 years old and not feasible unless RAN buy Flight III AB direct from the US hot production line.
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Thu Jul 14, 2022 7:19 pm

Of course, since NZ can't even make up their minds about building an ice-strengthened OPV, the point is probably moot.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Fri Jul 15, 2022 12:57 am

johns624 wrote:
Of course, since NZ can't even make up their minds about building an ice-strengthened OPV, the point is probably moot.


Yes agree hence my what if

Its a pretty sad state of affairs from NZGov
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:38 am

Looking at the RNZN website and reading some of their printed material, it almost seems that they consider the Canterbury to almost be more a domestic disaster relief ship than a naval warship. I don't know if this is just PC stuff for the public or if that's what they really consider it. While naval ships of that type are good at that type of operation, that shouldn't be why you buy it, only what you use it for when it's not doing its real job.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:53 am

johns624 wrote:
Looking at the RNZN website and reading some of their printed material, it almost seems that they consider the Canterbury to almost be more a domestic disaster relief ship than a naval warship. I don't know if this is just PC stuff for the public or if that's what they really consider it. While naval ships of that type are good at that type of operation, that shouldn't be why you buy it, only what you use it for when it's not doing its real job.


Which is what it was bought for, it's real job is disaster relief in the Pacific. The fact that it can carry other equipment is moot. Whatever we replace Canterbury with should have a much larger hospital and a well dock, we need to face facts this kind of vessel is far more useful to NZ than a helicopter assault ship, which is not what we do.

New Zealand and Australia will set up a new crisis centre to manage joint responses to natural disasters.

Their response force will initially be based around HMNZS Canterbury, a 9000-tonne, multi-role ship which is the only major asset of that kind available to either country.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nz-austra ... d=10705744
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:41 am

Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Looking at the RNZN website and reading some of their printed material, it almost seems that they consider the Canterbury to almost be more a domestic disaster relief ship than a naval warship. I don't know if this is just PC stuff for the public or if that's what they really consider it. While naval ships of that type are good at that type of operation, that shouldn't be why you buy it, only what you use it for when it's not doing its real job.

Which is what it was bought for, it's real job is disaster relief in the Pacific. The fact that it can carry other equipment is moot. Whatever we replace Canterbury with should have a much larger hospital and a well dock, we need to face facts this kind of vessel is far more useful to NZ than a helicopter assault ship, which is not what we do.

New Zealand and Australia will set up a new crisis centre to manage joint responses to natural disasters.
Their response force will initially be based around HMNZS Canterbury, a 9000-tonne, multi-role ship which is the only major asset of that kind available to either country.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nz-austra ... d=10705744


While we are all aware that HMNZS Canterbury was and is built on the cheap that does not take away from the fact its core role is Strategic/tactical lift for the NZ Army’s Ready Reaction Force, I would not describe that as moot

Quite clearly the design at its core role is strategic lift and tactical as a secondary capability it cannot be used in ship to shore in sea states higher than SS2 due to operational limits with its on-board crane and stern gate marriage between LCU.

HMNZS Canterbury replacement under the future 35 defence plan and capability renewal its core role is;

Continue to sustain all operational commitments and be more effective in
generating capability. Be able to deploy a Joint Amphibious Task Force (JATF),
which can deploy, conduct operations and sustain a Combined Arms Task Group
(CATG)
. To be able to lead mid intensity operations or operate as a coalition
force (most likely with the Australian Defence Force).


Have improved capability enhancements in sea basing, air mobility and Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR), our ability to process and share information will also be Improved

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA569741.pdf

certainly sounds like they are making a busines case for a pocket LHD to me





Its also noted you have used a link to a 2011 article which suggests that the ADF had no comparable capability to HMNZS Canterbury. It was a temporary pause from the early retirement of Kanimbla and Manoora whilst awaiting the commissioning of Choules and the Canberra’s
 
bunumuring
Topic Author
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 16, 2022 10:56 am

Hey guys,
I sincerely hope that Australia and NZ align more with defence purchases moving forward. Like A101 says, the C-17 white tails were a great opportunity to create some forward motion with joint planning and purchasing, similar to what the French and Germans are doing with their C-130Js.
Perhaps humanitarian aid could be an initial focus with a C-130J and a few helos dedicated to a joint squadron and forward-based in NZ to assist with natural disasters across the Pacific region? They could be used for other purposes when not required but think of the effectiveness of having such immediate support to assist our pacific neighbours in such situations : a real symbol of Aus and NZ putting words of 'family' into action.
Take care,
Bunumuring
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 16, 2022 11:10 am

A101 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Looking at the RNZN website and reading some of their printed material, it almost seems that they consider the Canterbury to almost be more a domestic disaster relief ship than a naval warship. I don't know if this is just PC stuff for the public or if that's what they really consider it. While naval ships of that type are good at that type of operation, that shouldn't be why you buy it, only what you use it for when it's not doing its real job.

Which is what it was bought for, it's real job is disaster relief in the Pacific. The fact that it can carry other equipment is moot. Whatever we replace Canterbury with should have a much larger hospital and a well dock, we need to face facts this kind of vessel is far more useful to NZ than a helicopter assault ship, which is not what we do.

New Zealand and Australia will set up a new crisis centre to manage joint responses to natural disasters.
Their response force will initially be based around HMNZS Canterbury, a 9000-tonne, multi-role ship which is the only major asset of that kind available to either country.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nz-austra ... d=10705744


While we are all aware that HMNZS Canterbury was and is built on the cheap that does not take away from the fact its core role is Strategic/tactical lift for the NZ Army’s Ready Reaction Force, I would not describe that as moot

Quite clearly the design at its core role is strategic lift and tactical as a secondary capability it cannot be used in ship to shore in sea states higher than SS2 due to operational limits with its on-board crane and stern gate marriage between LCU.

HMNZS Canterbury replacement under the future 35 defence plan and capability renewal its core role is;

Continue to sustain all operational commitments and be more effective in
generating capability. Be able to deploy a Joint Amphibious Task Force (JATF),
which can deploy, conduct operations and sustain a Combined Arms Task Group
(CATG)
. To be able to lead mid intensity operations or operate as a coalition
force (most likely with the Australian Defence Force).


Have improved capability enhancements in sea basing, air mobility and Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR), our ability to process and share information will also be Improved

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA569741.pdf

certainly sounds like they are making a busines case for a pocket LHD to me





Its also noted you have used a link to a 2011 article which suggests that the ADF had no comparable capability to HMNZS Canterbury. It was a temporary pause from the early retirement of Kanimbla and Manoora whilst awaiting the commissioning of Choules and the Canberra’s


You can say what you like Paul but IMO and born out by what she’s mostly been used for disaster relief in the Pacific has been Canterbury’s primary role. Whatever replaces her needs to be better at that role, ie larger hospital facilities, increased fresh water making facilities, well dock, and still have the ability to transport the army as a secondary role.

You have a crack at me for an article from 2011 and then you have the audacity to link a document from 2012 to make your point, are you having a laugh?
Last edited by Kiwirob on Sat Jul 16, 2022 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 16, 2022 11:12 am

Kiwirob wrote:
A101 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Which is what it was bought for, it's real job is disaster relief in the Pacific. The fact that it can carry other equipment is moot. Whatever we replace Canterbury with should have a much larger hospital and a well dock, we need to face facts this kind of vessel is far more useful to NZ than a helicopter assault ship, which is not what we do.



https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nz-austra ... d=10705744


While we are all aware that HMNZS Canterbury was and is built on the cheap that does not take away from the fact its core role is Strategic/tactical lift for the NZ Army’s Ready Reaction Force, I would not describe that as moot

Quite clearly the design at its core role is strategic lift and tactical as a secondary capability it cannot be used in ship to shore in sea states higher than SS2 due to operational limits with its on-board crane and stern gate marriage between LCU.

HMNZS Canterbury replacement under the future 35 defence plan and capability renewal its core role is;

Continue to sustain all operational commitments and be more effective in
generating capability. Be able to deploy a Joint Amphibious Task Force (JATF),
which can deploy, conduct operations and sustain a Combined Arms Task Group
(CATG)
. To be able to lead mid intensity operations or operate as a coalition
force (most likely with the Australian Defence Force).


Have improved capability enhancements in sea basing, air mobility and Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR), our ability to process and share information will also be Improved

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA569741.pdf

certainly sounds like they are making a busines case for a pocket LHD to me





Its also noted you have used a link to a 2011 article which suggests that the ADF had no comparable capability to HMNZS Canterbury. It was a temporary pause from the early retirement of Kanimbla and Manoora whilst awaiting the commissioning of Choules and the Canberra’s


You can say what you like Paul but IMO and born out by what she’s mostly been used for disaster relief in the Pacific has been Canterbury’s primary role. Whatever replaces her needs to be better at that role, ie larger hospital facilities, increased fresh water making facilities, well dock, and still have the ability to transport the army as a secondary role.

You have a crack at me for an article from 2011 and then you link a document from 2012 to make your point, are you having a laugh?
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 16, 2022 12:58 pm

While it's nice that NZ wants a new "disaster relief ship", for a country that small that doesn't fund their military very well, it seems to be an extravagance. If they had a few A400s, a couple more P8s, and had concrete plans for replacing their frigates and adding an ice-strengthened OPV, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 16, 2022 6:17 pm

johns624 wrote:
While it's nice that NZ wants a new "disaster relief ship", for a country that small that doesn't fund their military very well, it seems to be an extravagance. If they had a few A400s, a couple more P8s, and had concrete plans for replacing their frigates and adding an ice-strengthened OPV, I wouldn't have a problem with that.


IMO having a disaster relief ship will provide greater benefit to NZ than A400’s, new frigates and more P8’s. There’s an entire forum of lunatics who believe NZ should be armed to the teeth, what’s the point, nobody’s going to invade us, and those that could would make short work of any defence we could put up. Defending NZ would be more symbolic than effective, like Denmark during WW2.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6405
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 16, 2022 7:05 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
IMO having a disaster relief ship will provide greater benefit to NZ than A400’s, new frigates and more P8’s.


I agree. For a nation with limited funds, a relief ship that can be useful both in time of war and peace is beneficial to the whole region.

If a shooting war starts, there will be plenty of P-8s from the US and AUS.

bt
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 16, 2022 8:01 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
A101 wrote:
While we are all aware that HMNZS Canterbury was and is built on the cheap that does not take away from the fact its core role is Strategic/tactical lift for the NZ Army’s Ready Reaction Force, I would not describe that as moot
Quite clearly the design at its core role is strategic lift and tactical as a secondary capability it cannot be used in ship to shore in sea states higher than SS2 due to operational limits with its on-board crane and stern gate marriage between LCU.
HMNZS Canterbury replacement under the future 35 defence plan and capability renewal its core role is;
Continue to sustain all operational commitments and be more effective in
generating capability. Be able to deploy a Joint Amphibious Task Force (JATF),
which can deploy, conduct operations and sustain a Combined Arms Task Group
(CATG). To be able to lead mid intensity operations or operate as a coalition
force (most likely with the Australian Defence Force).
Have improved capability enhancements in sea basing, air mobility and Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR), our ability to process and share information will also be Improved
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA569741.pdf
certainly, sounds like they are making a business case for a pocket LHD to me
Its also noted you have used a link to a 2011 article which suggests that the ADF had no comparable capability to HMNZS Canterbury. It was a temporary pause from the early retirement of Kanimbla and Manoora whilst awaiting the commissioning of Choules and the Canberra’s

You can say what you like Paul but IMO and born out by what she’s mostly been used for disaster relief in the Pacific has been Canterbury’s primary role. Whatever replaces her needs to be better at that role, ie larger hospital facilities, increased fresh water making facilities, well dock, and still have the ability to transport the army as a secondary role.

You make me laugh, if the primary role of the new proposed sea lift ship is disaster relief, then they could certainly get a few more and cheaper options than the budget laid down of more than $1Billion in the DCP and that is for the 1st ship. HMNZS Canterbury has an OSD in the mid 2030’s and the plan are to use the same ship design for which has an ISD of 2029.

Just because the majority of the time Canterbury is used in that role is not an indication that it is the primary role, otherwise the NZDF might as well be rerolled as a border and coast guard force and after many successive NZDF reviews that the NZDF combat force should be maintained in mid to high level role to support NZ defence and strategic needs.

Also, if its primary role is HADR there would not be a need to incorporate into the design for storage and handling of explosive ordinance requirements. The disaster relief ship would not have a need for a stabilised naval gun for self-protection, for these are a requirement in its core role.

It was the same thinking in the ADF when the AusGov purchased and built 2x Canberra class LHD. so far, they too have primarily been used for HADR but even a blind dog can see its not its primary role. You can also say that for the USN and the Wasp class they have conducted more HADR missions than its primary role of amphibious assault. The assets or dual hat dual use with a majority of the training can be used in military or civil environments. The movement of stores and equipment and C&C for HADR has direct military training applications.

Kiwirob wrote:
You have a crack at me for an article from 2011 and then you have the audacity to link a document from 2012 to make your point, are you having a laugh?


I had not intended to use the thesis in the link as I had the original future 35 documents released by NZGov on an earlier pc which unfortunately I did not back up before that computer died, those documents would also have been from an earlier era.

What the link does show is an in-depth analysis into the thinking of future pathways of those plans which are based on the documents released by NZG. But what has not changed with each successive NZDF reviews that it confirms and reinforces the capability set from the thesis and documents from that era. The only thing I did was forget to also provide the link to the latest NZDF DCP

https://www.defence.govt.nz/assets/Uplo ... n-2019.pdf

The document is a far cry to the link which you presented to give the impression that Canterbury is the only major asset of that kind available to either country. I would like to think that you realise that a through-deck design LHD with multiple internal decks and internal lifts is inherently more flexible than a LPD which is restricted to only one or two spots for concurrent helicopter operations, but also can increase the size and flexibility of the other functions in both sustaining air operations with increased support to maintenance and or timely replacement of air assets that can be reduced equipment becoming unserviceable.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 16, 2022 9:44 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
While it's nice that NZ wants a new "disaster relief ship", for a country that small that doesn't fund their military very well, it seems to be an extravagance. If they had a few A400s, a couple more P8s, and had concrete plans for replacing their frigates and adding an ice-strengthened OPV, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

IMO having a disaster relief ship will provide greater benefit to NZ than A400’s, new frigates and more P8’s. There’s an entire forum of lunatics who believe NZ should be armed to the teeth, what’s the point, nobody’s going to invade us, and those that could would make short work of any defence we could put up. Defending NZ would be more symbolic than effective, like Denmark during WW2

You do realise that HADR is only one aspect of contributing to a rules-based order and NZ interest just do not lie within the 200nm EEZ. If NZ wants economic resilience, then it needs to be able to contribute maintain those SLOC that are indispensable to maintain that economic resilience.

It is a core responsibility of independent countries to take care of their own security within there means and develop relations with internal policies to provide collective security, what that also means is that NZ must retain the confidence and support of the countries on whose assistance they rely in ways that can contribute to the security of both nations and their interests. Hence the freeze in military-to-military relations with the US and ANZUS treaty by removing capability and or interests you remove that confidence that NZ will help defend the other nations national interests. Its not about whether you can match your partner nations defence might, its rather how affective you can contribute to the overall alliance to integrating within a larger organisation and within that being able to influence decisions around the table.
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 16, 2022 11:00 pm

A101 wrote:
You do realise that HADR is only one aspect of contributing to a rules-based order and NZ interest just do not lie within the 200nm EEZ. If NZ wants economic resilience, then it needs to be able to contribute maintain those SLOC that are indispensable to maintain that economic resilience.

It is a core responsibility of independent countries to take care of their own security within there means and develop relations with internal policies to provide collective security, what that also means is that NZ must retain the confidence and support of the countries on whose assistance they rely in ways that can contribute to the security of both nations and their interests. Hence the freeze in military-to-military relations with the US and ANZUS treaty by removing capability and or interests you remove that confidence that NZ will help defend the other nations national interests. Its not about whether you can match your partner nations defence might, its rather how affective you can contribute to the overall alliance to integrating within a larger organisation and within that being able to influence decisions around the table.
Thanks! You said it much better than I could. The only other western country with the same disregard for their own defense is Ireland. It would be one thing if they were poor and couldn't afford it, but they can. Nobody is saying they need MBTs and fighter-bombers, but they should have some first rate equipment.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sun Jul 17, 2022 4:34 am

johns624 wrote:
A101 wrote:
You do realise that HADR is only one aspect of contributing to a rules-based order and NZ interest just do not lie within the 200nm EEZ. If NZ wants economic resilience, then it needs to be able to contribute maintain those SLOC that are indispensable to maintain that economic resilience.

It is a core responsibility of independent countries to take care of their own security within there means and develop relations with internal policies to provide collective security, what that also means is that NZ must retain the confidence and support of the countries on whose assistance they rely in ways that can contribute to the security of both nations and their interests. Hence the freeze in military-to-military relations with the US and ANZUS treaty by removing capability and or interests you remove that confidence that NZ will help defend the other nations national interests. Its not about whether you can match your partner nations defence might, its rather how affective you can contribute to the overall alliance to integrating within a larger organisation and within that being able to influence decisions around the table.
Thanks! You said it much better than I could. The only other western country with the same disregard for their own defense is Ireland. It would be one thing if they were poor and couldn't afford it, but they can. Nobody is saying they need MBTs and fighter-bombers, but they should have some first rate equipment.


Quote frankly what is the point? We're a small nation of 5.1m people at the arse end of the world, Paul's premise that we need to defend our SLOC's is daft, 2-3 frigates will not do that, buying an all singing all dancing billion dollar sealift vessel will not do that, buying a couple more P8's will not do that. More to the point who is going to cut NZ off from the rest of the world and why would they do it in the first instance? Sabre rattling and seeing threats when there are none is a pointless endeavour.

Who does Ireland need to defend themselves from? If Ireland was facing imminent invasion that would mean Europe has fallen, who could do that, you jest if you think Russia could pull that off! Iceland is in the same situation as Ireland, they don't have any need to defend themselves because there is no threat.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sun Jul 17, 2022 7:32 am

Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
A101 wrote:
You do realise that HADR is only one aspect of contributing to a rules-based order and NZ interest just do not lie within the 200nm EEZ. If NZ wants economic resilience, then it needs to be able to contribute maintain those SLOC that are indispensable to maintain that economic resilience.
It is a core responsibility of independent countries to take care of their own security within there means and develop relations with internal policies to provide collective security, what that also means is that NZ must retain the confidence and support of the countries on whose assistance they rely in ways that can contribute to the security of both nations and their interests. Hence the freeze in military-to-military relations with the US and ANZUS treaty by removing capability and or interests you remove that confidence that NZ will help defend the other nations national interests. Its not about whether you can match your partner nations defence might, its rather how affective you can contribute to the overall alliance to integrating within a larger organisation and within that being able to influence decisions around the table.

Thanks! You said it much better than I could. The only other western country with the same disregard for their own defense is Ireland. It would be one thing if they were poor and couldn't afford it, but they can. Nobody is saying they need MBTs and fighter-bombers, but they should have some first rate equipment.

Quote frankly what is the point? We're a small nation of 5.1m people at the arse end of the world, Paul's premise that we need to defend our SLOC's is daft, 2-3 frigates will not do that, buying an all singing all dancing billion dollar sealift vessel will not do that, buying a couple more P8's will not do that. More to the point who is going to cut NZ off from the rest of the world and why would they do it in the first instance? Sabre rattling and seeing threats when there are none is a pointless endeavour.

So, what are you expecting that under Australia–New Zealand Agreement it should become one way and the ADF to do the heavy lifting to ensure that NZ can continue to have an independent foreign policy without cost on how that is achieved?

Do you also believe the NZ should retreat from its obligations within the UN and to support the international rules-based order?

So, what are NZ National security objectives?
There are 7 main objectives
1. Ensuring public safety — providing for, and mitigating risks to, the safety of citizens and communities (all hazards and threats, whether natural or man-made);

2. Preserving sovereignty and territorial integrity — protecting the physical security of citizens, and exercising control over territory consistent with national sovereignty;

3. Protecting lines of communication — these are both physical and virtual and allow New Zealand to communicate, trade and engage globally;

4. Strengthening international order to promote security — contributing to the development of a rules-based international system, and engaging in targeted interventions offshore to protect New Zealand’s interests;

5. Sustaining economic prosperity — maintaining and advancing the economic wellbeing of individuals, families, businesses and communities;

6. Maintaining democratic institutions and national values — preventing activities aimed at undermining or overturning government institutions, principles and values that underpin New Zealand society;

7. Protecting the natural environment — contributing to the preservation and stewardship of New Zealand’s natural and physical environment.

https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-programmes/nat ... m/national

I think one should stand back and look at the foundation of NZ policy which goes back 102 years when it was a founding member of the League of Nations and its current format called the United Nations.

I think its timely to remember NZ High Commissioner Mr. Bill Jordan speech in 1937 at the League of Nations and determine if it is an old anachronism from another time or one which has stood the test of time in the current multipolar world;



My nation is a small one; you may say, if you please, that it is insignificant in size and perhaps in strength; but it will stand by the Covenant and the policy of collective security in order to maintain peace, or to restore it when it is broken, and to give safety to the people of our generation
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sun Jul 17, 2022 2:51 pm

Kiwirob wrote:

Quote frankly what is the point? We're a small nation of 5.1m people at the arse end of the world, Paul's premise that we need to defend our SLOC's is daft, 2-3 frigates will not do that, buying an all singing all dancing billion dollar sealift vessel will not do that, buying a couple more P8's will not do that. More to the point who is going to cut NZ off from the rest of the world and why would they do it in the first instance? Sabre rattling and seeing threats when there are none is a pointless endeavour.

Who does Ireland need to defend themselves from? If Ireland was facing imminent invasion that would mean Europe has fallen, who could do that, you jest if you think Russia could pull that off! Iceland is in the same situation as Ireland, they don't have any need to defend themselves because there is no threat.
Basically, what you're saying is that "we don't have to spend money on defense because other countries between us and the threat have spent THEIR money on defense". If every other country felt that way, you'd have to spend a lot more money on your defense. Are you going to let Chinese factory fishing ships rob your EEZ without you probably not even knowing that they're there? That would make NZ a much poorer country in the long term.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1264
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Mon Jul 18, 2022 8:15 am

johns624 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

Quote frankly what is the point? We're a small nation of 5.1m people at the arse end of the world, Paul's premise that we need to defend our SLOC's is daft, 2-3 frigates will not do that, buying an all singing all dancing billion dollar sealift vessel will not do that, buying a couple more P8's will not do that. More to the point who is going to cut NZ off from the rest of the world and why would they do it in the first instance? Sabre rattling and seeing threats when there are none is a pointless endeavour.

Who does Ireland need to defend themselves from? If Ireland was facing imminent invasion that would mean Europe has fallen, who could do that, you jest if you think Russia could pull that off! Iceland is in the same situation as Ireland, they don't have any need to defend themselves because there is no threat.
Basically, what you're saying is that "we don't have to spend money on defense because other countries between us and the threat have spent THEIR money on defense". If every other country felt that way, you'd have to spend a lot more money on your defense. Are you going to let Chinese factory fishing ships rob your EEZ without you probably not even knowing that they're there? That would make NZ a much poorer country in the long term.


I think he is saying, well, what he has said black and white in his post, like twice now. That there is no amount of money NZ could realistically spend to fend of a serious invader, none of which is on the horizon anyway.
It would be a daft use of money.
Disaster relief and protection of their fishing is accomplished with what what they have now and what will come as replacements. No need to arm NZ to the teeth to defend against…well nobody.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:57 am

Nicoeddf wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

Quote frankly what is the point? We're a small nation of 5.1m people at the arse end of the world, Paul's premise that we need to defend our SLOC's is daft, 2-3 frigates will not do that, buying an all singing all dancing billion dollar sealift vessel will not do that, buying a couple more P8's will not do that. More to the point who is going to cut NZ off from the rest of the world and why would they do it in the first instance? Sabre rattling and seeing threats when there are none is a pointless endeavour.

Who does Ireland need to defend themselves from? If Ireland was facing imminent invasion that would mean Europe has fallen, who could do that, you jest if you think Russia could pull that off! Iceland is in the same situation as Ireland, they don't have any need to defend themselves because there is no threat.
Basically, what you're saying is that "we don't have to spend money on defense because other countries between us and the threat have spent THEIR money on defense". If every other country felt that way, you'd have to spend a lot more money on your defense. Are you going to let Chinese factory fishing ships rob your EEZ without you probably not even knowing that they're there? That would make NZ a much poorer country in the long term.


I think he is saying, well, what he has said black and white in his post, like twice now. That there is no amount of money NZ could realistically spend to fend of a serious invader, none of which is on the horizon anyway.
It would be a daft use of money.
Disaster relief and protection of their fishing is accomplished with what what they have now and what will come as replacements. No need to arm NZ to the teeth to defend against…well nobody.


Who says you have to be invaded?

Remember the Orion?

Commanded by Kurt Weyher, the Orion departed Germany in April 1940 and entered the Pacific on May 21. After rounding Cape Horn, it headed towards New Zealand and mined the Hauraki Gulf on June 13, the gateway to Auckland, sinking the liner Niagara. Weyher captured the Norwegian freighter Tropic Sea near the Kermadec Islands and, after entering the Coral Sea, he sank the French steamer Notou near Noumea. Next, the Germans intercepted the freighter Turakina near Wellington. Captain James Laird, the ship’s master, ordered his stern gun to fire, initiating history’s first naval battle in the Tasman Sea. The Orion’s guns reduced the freighter to a blazing hulk, killing 36 men including Laird.


The Russians are coming, again, in submarines to waters near New Zealand.

The state-run Itar-Tass agency says Russia will send submarines armed with nuclear ballistic missiles to the South Pacific and the Southern Ocean.

It echoes the Soviet days and in 1982, when a Russian submarine was photographed by the Royal New Zealand Air Force east of New Zealand.




But on a light hearted note

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xUYbI64QHI
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Mon Jul 18, 2022 12:55 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:

I think he is saying, well, what he has said black and white in his post, like twice now. That there is no amount of money NZ could realistically spend to fend of a serious invader, none of which is on the horizon anyway.
It would be a daft use of money.
Disaster relief and protection of their fishing is accomplished with what what they have now and what will come as replacements. No need to arm NZ to the teeth to defend against…well nobody.
Then they should withdraw from ANZUS and Five Eyes if they are going to depend on the other members.Defense treaties rely on all members to pull their weight. Nobody said anything about arming them to the teeth. No MBTs, no subs, no jet fighters. Just a slightly more robust navy, which for an island nation is the most important. Also, how do you patrol the 9th largest EEZ in the world with TWO OPVs?
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:53 am

johns624 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:

I think he is saying, well, what he has said black and white in his post, like twice now. That there is no amount of money NZ could realistically spend to fend of a serious invader, none of which is on the horizon anyway.
It would be a daft use of money.
Disaster relief and protection of their fishing is accomplished with what what they have now and what will come as replacements. No need to arm NZ to the teeth to defend against…well nobody.
Then they should withdraw from ANZUS and Five Eyes if they are going to depend on the other members.Defense treaties rely on all members to pull their weight. Nobody said anything about arming them to the teeth. No MBTs, no subs, no jet fighters. Just a slightly more robust navy, which for an island nation is the most important. Also, how do you patrol the 9th largest EEZ in the world with TWO OPVs?


You also forgot the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) Australian-New Zealand Agreement of 1944 I imagine that there would be a multitude of other minor agreement like the Defence Cooperation Agreement with China but that more relates to HADR assistance
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:02 pm

johns624 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

Quote frankly what is the point? We're a small nation of 5.1m people at the arse end of the world, Paul's premise that we need to defend our SLOC's is daft, 2-3 frigates will not do that, buying an all singing all dancing billion dollar sealift vessel will not do that, buying a couple more P8's will not do that. More to the point who is going to cut NZ off from the rest of the world and why would they do it in the first instance? Sabre rattling and seeing threats when there are none is a pointless endeavour.

Who does Ireland need to defend themselves from? If Ireland was facing imminent invasion that would mean Europe has fallen, who could do that, you jest if you think Russia could pull that off! Iceland is in the same situation as Ireland, they don't have any need to defend themselves because there is no threat.
Basically, what you're saying is that "we don't have to spend money on defense because other countries between us and the threat have spent THEIR money on defense". If every other country felt that way, you'd have to spend a lot more money on your defense. Are you going to let Chinese factory fishing ships rob your EEZ without you probably not even knowing that they're there? That would make NZ a much poorer country in the long term.


Pretty much on the nail.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:14 pm

johns624 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:

I think he is saying, well, what he has said black and white in his post, like twice now. That there is no amount of money NZ could realistically spend to fend of a serious invader, none of which is on the horizon anyway.
It would be a daft use of money.
Disaster relief and protection of their fishing is accomplished with what what they have now and what will come as replacements. No need to arm NZ to the teeth to defend against…well nobody.
Then they should withdraw from ANZUS and Five Eyes if they are going to depend on the other members.Defense treaties rely on all members to pull their weight. Nobody said anything about arming them to the teeth. No MBTs, no subs, no jet fighters. Just a slightly more robust navy, which for an island nation is the most important. Also, how do you patrol the 9th largest EEZ in the world with TWO OPVs?


ANZUS died for us when we became Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, Five Eyes is pointless, I really wonder what NZ gets out of it, I’m pretty sure it’s more one way traffic to the US than anything heading back to NZ.

I would be perfectly happy if we dumped the pretence of a fighting navy and the RNZN became a became a coast guard. Replace the two frigates with 4/5 more useful vessels like the USCG Legend Class Cutters, long range, high endurance, helicopter capable, that’s more than enough to protect our EEC. We’re not going to war with anyone and if we did how long are the frigates going to last, IMO they’ll just become a war grave for the crew.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Thu Jul 21, 2022 10:23 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:

I think he is saying, well, what he has said black and white in his post, like twice now. That there is no amount of money NZ could realistically spend to fend of a serious invader, none of which is on the horizon anyway.
It would be a daft use of money.
Disaster relief and protection of their fishing is accomplished with what what they have now and what will come as replacements. No need to arm NZ to the teeth to defend against…well nobody.
Then they should withdraw from ANZUS and Five Eyes if they are going to depend on the other members.Defense treaties rely on all members to pull their weight. Nobody said anything about arming them to the teeth. No MBTs, no subs, no jet fighters. Just a slightly more robust navy, which for an island nation is the most important. Also, how do you patrol the 9th largest EEZ in the world with TWO OPVs?


ANZUS died for us when we became Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, Five Eyes is pointless, I really wonder what NZ gets out of it, I’m pretty sure it’s more one way traffic to the US than anything heading back to NZ.

I would be perfectly happy if we dumped the pretence of a fighting navy and the RNZN became a became a coast guard. Replace the two frigates with 4/5 more useful vessels like the USCG Legend Class Cutters, long range, high endurance, helicopter capable, that’s more than enough to protect our EEC. We’re not going to war with anyone and if we did how long are the frigates going to last, IMO they’ll just become a war grave for the crew.


Best get a hold of Huntington Ingalls they are building the last one at the moment.

haven't got cost for the current ship but the 2013fy price was 713m usd which is about 1.1billion nzd

why not go cheaper with the type 31 336m GBP or around 650m NZD two for one
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 14418
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Fri Jul 22, 2022 9:04 am

A101 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Then they should withdraw from ANZUS and Five Eyes if they are going to depend on the other members.Defense treaties rely on all members to pull their weight. Nobody said anything about arming them to the teeth. No MBTs, no subs, no jet fighters. Just a slightly more robust navy, which for an island nation is the most important. Also, how do you patrol the 9th largest EEZ in the world with TWO OPVs?


ANZUS died for us when we became Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, Five Eyes is pointless, I really wonder what NZ gets out of it, I’m pretty sure it’s more one way traffic to the US than anything heading back to NZ.

I would be perfectly happy if we dumped the pretence of a fighting navy and the RNZN became a became a coast guard. Replace the two frigates with 4/5 more useful vessels like the USCG Legend Class Cutters, long range, high endurance, helicopter capable, that’s more than enough to protect our EEC. We’re not going to war with anyone and if we did how long are the frigates going to last, IMO they’ll just become a war grave for the crew.


Best get a hold of Huntington Ingalls they are building the last one at the moment.

haven't got cost for the current ship but the 2013fy price was 713m usd which is about 1.1billion nzd

why not go cheaper with the type 31 336m GBP or around 650m NZD two for one


Notice I said LIKE the Legend class, that doesn't mean THE Legend class.

The 10th in class cost 540m USD.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:22 am

Kiwirob wrote:
A101 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

ANZUS died for us when we became Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, Five Eyes is pointless, I really wonder what NZ gets out of it, I’m pretty sure it’s more one way traffic to the US than anything heading back to NZ.

I would be perfectly happy if we dumped the pretence of a fighting navy and the RNZN became a became a coast guard. Replace the two frigates with 4/5 more useful vessels like the USCG Legend Class Cutters, long range, high endurance, helicopter capable, that’s more than enough to protect our EEC. We’re not going to war with anyone and if we did how long are the frigates going to last, IMO they’ll just become a war grave for the crew.


Best get a hold of Huntington Ingalls they are building the last one at the moment.

haven't got cost for the current ship but the 2013fy price was 713m usd which is about 1.1billion nzd

why not go cheaper with the type 31 336m GBP or around 650m NZD two for one


Notice I said LIKE the Legend class, that doesn't mean THE Legend class.

The 10th in class cost 540m USD.


All I referring to is you better get in quick as they are building the last one and there are cheaper options

Not sure why you are getting your knickers in a knot
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:21 pm

The other problem that NZ seems to have is a manning one. Would newer, more effective ships with smaller crews help that? I know it would hurt the government budget.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 23, 2022 3:54 am

johns624 wrote:
The other problem that NZ seems to have is a manning one. Would newer, more effective ships with smaller crews help that? I know it would hurt the government budget.


its down to pretty much what's happening in the ADF increasing the size over time to man the new systems as they come on line
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:34 pm

I don't understand why so many ignore that NZ is part of several treaties. It's not them against the world. They'll always have help. To paraphrase and edit a biblical saying "other countries help countries who help themselves". Nobody in the Pacific can stand up to China by themselves, but when you have the US, Australia and Japan on your side, it evens up the odds. Then you might be able to throw in India and the UK. If push came to shove, the ROK would probably be too occupied with the Norks to lend much initial help.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:29 pm

johns624 wrote:
I don't understand why so many ignore that NZ is part of several treaties. It's not them against the world. They'll always have help. To paraphrase and edit a biblical saying "other countries help countries who help themselves". Nobody in the Pacific can stand up to China by themselves, but when you have the US, Australia and Japan on your side, it evens up the odds. Then you might be able to throw in India and the UK. If push came to shove, the ROK would probably be too occupied with the Norks to lend much initial help.

Seablindness the inability to see past one nose.

But yes the world is more connected than ever NZ is more dependent on trade now and those SLOC are of strategic importance to NZ just like they are for many nations.
This is from the Chinese J-16 cut across RAAF P-8A Poseidon thread and posted by tphuang and is a deeply worrying though process coupled with a military build up and expansion which is more offensive orientated than defence

China militarizing SCS islands allows it to control pretty much all of SCS from Spratleys to mainland. It allows them to control all of the energy/commerce that passes through (which is a lot).

And who cant remember there own history

Major General Sir Howard Kippenberger, warned:
“It may be a good thing to continue doing nothing as at present and trust in the mercy of God to a people too selfish and lazy to help themselves. We can say, truly, that New Zealand cannot alone defend herself…so, perhaps, we had better leave it to others, or deny that there is any danger and get on with our amusements and the rapid erosion of our land. Or we can pull ourselves together and act as a grown up Nation.”
 
johns624
Posts: 5921
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:40 pm

A101 wrote:
And who cant remember there own history

Major General Sir Howard Kippenberger, warned:
“It may be a good thing to continue doing nothing as at present and trust in the mercy of God to a people too selfish and lazy to help themselves. We can say, truly, that New Zealand cannot alone defend herself…so, perhaps, we had better leave it to others, or deny that there is any danger and get on with our amusements and the rapid erosion of our land. Or we can pull ourselves together and act as a grown up Nation.”

He died in 1957. I didn't know this NZ mindset had been around that long.
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Sun Jul 24, 2022 12:06 am

One must be living under a rock to really suggest that NZ because is so far away it lives in a benign state of affairs.

New Zealanders have a deep sense of complacency about their security and feel that they’re very far away from the problems that we are seeing unfold in other parts of the world—that’s just not true anymore … Here is an actual challenge to our sovereignty—and a New Zealand family who have had their safety threatened—and our government is not defending them.


China hasn't had to pressure New Zealand to accept China's soft power activities and political influence. The New Zealand government has actively courted it. Ever since New Zealand-PRC diplomatic relations were established in 1972, successive New Zealand governments have followed policies of attracting Beijing's attention and favor through high profile support for China's new economic agendas. New Zealand has strived to always be the first Western country to sign up to China’s new external economic policies, whether it is China's entry into the WTO, a Free Trade Agreement with China, the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB), and most recently the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI/OBOR). New Zealand governments have also encouraged China to be active in New Zealand's region—from the South Pacific to Antarctica; initially as a balance to Soviet influence, as an aid donor and scientific partner, and lately, as part of “diversification” of New Zealand's military links away from Five Eyes partnerships.


https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/defa ... eapons.pdf
 
A101
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Australia NZ and PNG latest

Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:43 am

A rather interesting read.

Hopefully the heads are coming out of the sand

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/07/mor ... se-review/

More proactive posture on table as New Zealand begins new defense review

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kaanere and 5 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos