New Zealand Army

[STURM]

I suspect it's due to a variety of reasons; the Ukrainians having a better anti UAS capability compared to previous years; the Russians not deploying UASs in the required numbers; Russian problems in acquiring targets, etc.

There have been reports of Russian "loitering drones" in action; something the Russians weren't known to have previously. There is also the question of how really effective have Ukrainian TB2s been apart from the odd strikes captured on.camera.

One thing's for sure; whether in Nargano Karabakh, Libya, Iraq and other places; to date UASs have been employed against opponents which lacked an effective ground means to counter them and which manned platforms were not widely employed against them. Years ago the Georgians released footage of one of its Israeli UASs being fired upon and subsequently destroyed by a Russian Fulcrum. UASs are slow and lack the means to defend themselves.

 

[kiwi in exile]

One thing's for sure ... to date UASs have been employed against opponents which lacked an effective ground means to counter them and which manned platforms were not widely employed against them.

NZDF could fit that description. As well as UAS we need to evolve a hard kill/soft kill counter UAS cabability and SHORAD. Any insurgency we may be involved with in the SW pacific, or further afield is likely to involve enemy UAS systems. There can be easily and cheaply weaponised.


Soft kill counter-uas system mounterd on Polaris MZR, deployed and active on HMNZS Canterbury US naval ship
Marine Anti-Drone Buggies On USS Boxer Knocked Down "Threatening" Iranian Drone (Updated)

 

[kiwi in exile]

The Russo-Ukrainian war’s lessons for the Australian Army | The Strategist
https://cove.army.gov.au/article/battle-marawi-small-team-lessons-learned-close-fight
The Battle of Marawi: Small Team Lessons Learned For the Close Fight. | The Cove

These may be of interest to those contemplating future design on NZ land forces.
Primacy of drones and EW is highlighted in both texts/campaigns- something that rapidly needs to be intergrated into our land capability.

 

[Pusser01]

Saw this article today, guess that confirms the rumor about the surplus LAV being sold. Cheers New Zealand sells LAVs to Chile - CONTACT magazine

 

[Stuart M]

Saw this article today, guess that confirms the rumor about the surplus LAV being sold. Cheers New Zealand sells LAVs to Chile - CONTACT magazine

Chief of Army Major General John Boswell said the NZLAV fleet continued to be critical to Army’s ability to provide the New Zealand government with a combat-capable military response option for use alongside allies and partners.

“[This] sale still allows the Army to maintain a range of capabilities and offer a number of potential deployment options, including domestic disaster response, regional security missions, and peacekeeping through to combat operations,” Major General Boswell said.

Cant say I agree with this, although obviously he cannot say anything that might contradict the government of the day, but as far as I am concerned this really does reduces NZ armys capacity for combat to ornamental levels: Political props for ANZAC day and Remembrance Day.

As there is now pretty much zero attrition reserve left, how exactly can it be said with a straight face that NZ Army can deploy in combat? Look at Ukraine, how desperate they are for weapons and munition, one might have thought a rethink was in order on this one.

 

[RegR]

Cant say I agree with this, although obviously he cannot say anything that might contradict the government of the day, but as far as I am concerned this really does reduces NZ armys capacity for combat to ornamental levels: Political props for ANZAC day and Remembrance Day.

As there is now pretty much zero attrition reserve left, how exactly can it be said with a straight face that NZ Army can deploy in combat? Look at Ukraine, how desperate they are for weapons and munition, one might have thought a rethink was in order on this one.

Well TBH that all depends on how many we would realistically deploy into combat in the first place as to how many attrition hulls we do or do not have available. A LAV sqn (arguably the most we would send) has @20 LAV and the chances of us deploying QAMR in its entirety is very slim indeed. We so far have only ever deployed 9 operationally and lost 1 in the almost 20 years we have had them, hardly an attritional nightmare, and with only 22 sold we still have 8-13 still sitting in a warm cosy Trentham warehouse on blocks and gathering dust anyway ie attrition hulls.

The other consideration is actual qualified crews to operate them, which is a major reason we have so many "spare" LAV in the first place. If we are losing LAV in numbers then somewhat safe to say we would also be losing crews so if no one can operate all these spare systems then they are rather limited in use anyway. I would rather see the lost NZLAV replaced with a smaller armoured vehicle like hawkei/LMT/JLTV type as quick protected transport for all those added AT/AA missile teams we should be fielding as if Ukraine has shown us anything is the importance and effectiveness of these systems against an overwhelming force, something we especially could take note of.

 

[Stuart M]

Well TBH that all depends on how many we would realistically deploy into combat in the first place as to how many attrition hulls we do or do not have available. A LAV sqn (arguably the most we would send) has @20 LAV and the chances of us deploying QAMR in its entirety is very slim indeed. We so far have only ever deployed 9 operationally and lost 1 in the almost 20 years we have had them, hardly an attritional nightmare, and with only 22 sold we still have 8-13 still sitting in a warm cosy Trentham warehouse on blocks and gathering dust anyway ie attrition hulls.

The other consideration is actual qualified crews to operate them, which is a major reason we have so many "spare" LAV in the first place. If we are losing LAV in numbers then somewhat safe to say we would also be losing crews so if no one can operate all these spare systems then they are rather limited in use anyway. I would rather see the lost NZLAV replaced with a smaller armoured vehicle like hawkei/LMT/JLTV type as quick protected transport for all those added AT/AA missile teams we should be fielding as if Ukraine has shown us anything is the importance and effectiveness of these systems against an overwhelming force, something we especially could take note of.

Whist I don't disagree with additional vehicles suitable for atgw use, I don't think it should be an either or proposition, systems of systems etc.

The issue of recruitment aside, I think that's a separate issue in many ways, to argue for lower armoured vehicle numbers on the basis of historical deployments is misguided, and would invariably lead to no armoured vehicles, just look at the ACF.

The armed forces exist first and foremost for war, and in war equipment gets destroyed quickly, and 8-13 pares won't cover it.
And if the experience of Ukraine is not example enough,(were they expecting to be in a fight for their life 30 years ago?)do we ever really want to be like the UK circa 1940, begging for 50 old 4 stackers, because of misplaced hopes and assumptions leading to disastrous forward planning? Or are we so deluded that we think that war is something that only ever happens to others, cause we're such a splendid lot with our clean green independent foreign policy?
No, the the attritional nightmare comes when that squadron is defunct from losses in a war not of our making, and those losses cannot be sustained because of us wilfully ignoring the lessons of historic, recent and current wars.
Bluntly, the NZ army looks more and more like an underequipped version of the old BEF of 1914 that, well equipped and professional as it was, was eaten alive by the reality of modern high intensity warfare.

 

[ngatimozart]

I would rather see the lost NZLAV replaced with a smaller armoured vehicle like hawkei/LMT/JLTV type as quick protected transport for all those added AT/AA missile teams we should be fielding as if Ukraine has shown us anything is the importance and effectiveness of these systems against an overwhelming force, something we especially could take note of.

We would be better off moving to an amphibious mechanised medium infantry capability because that's where our operational area is going to be - the South Pacific full of reefs, atolls and islands. So, I would rather see the LAV III replaced by the BAE ACV that's entering service with the USMC, and have your 8 - 10 dismounts in the rear with ATGM & MANPAD capabilities as part of the section. When not required the weapons can be stowed in the vehicle. The vehicle has a capacity of 13 dismounts plus 3 crew. Since the NZ Army has 10 troops to a Section, the 3 left over spaces can be used to stow weapons like ATGM, MANPADS etc. There is an ACV-30 which mounts a turret with a 30mm gun and that's what we want. The ACV will give the infantry far better protection than lightly armoured 4WD vehicles will. The protection of Russian IFVs isn't very good because they are thinly armoured especially the earlier model vehicles. The M113 is better armoured than some. The NZ LAV III is poorly armoured compared to its peers because of cost. It cost to much to install decent armour.

 

[RegR]

Whist I don't disagree with additional vehicles suitable for atgw use, I don't think it should be an either or proposition, systems of systems etc.

The issue of recruitment aside, I think that's a separate issue in many ways, to argue for lower armoured vehicle numbers on the basis of historical deployments is misguided, and would invariably lead to no armoured vehicles, just look at the ACF.

The armed forces exist first and foremost for war, and in war equipment gets destroyed quickly, and 8-13 pares won't cover it.
And if the experience of Ukraine is not example enough,(were they expecting to be in a fight for their life 30 years ago?)do we ever really want to be like the UK circa 1940, begging for 50 old 4 stackers, because of misplaced hopes and assumptions leading to disastrous forward planning? Or are we so deluded that we think that war is something that only ever happens to others, cause we're such a splendid lot with our clean green independent foreign policy?
No, the the attritional nightmare comes when that squadron is defunct from losses in a war not of our making, and those losses cannot be sustained because of us wilfully ignoring the lessons of historic, recent and current wars.
Bluntly, the NZ army looks more and more like an underequipped version of the old BEF of 1914 that, well equipped and professional as it was, was eaten alive by the reality of modern high intensity warfare.

But the point is the "recruitment issue" is now past the point it is not even an issue anymore, it's a foregone conclusion and now the new (old) orbat. We can keep saying we can just recruit more to fill the numbers when in actual fact it has only been getting worse not better in the 20 years since we bought 105 NZLAVs and decided to motorise both battalions. We couldn't do it then and after all these years, we still can't and so again we can have all the kit in the world but if we have no pers qualified to use it then it is literally just in storage and even if anything did kick off, still would be, through lack of people to actually use it. Ukraine actually had/has one of the largest militaries in Europe with an even bigger reserve force so they have the manpower already. If we had a sizable reserve force then yea a commensurate attrition fleet would be warranted, but we don't, in fact we struggle to fill the regular slots if we are being brutally honest.

Its a bit like saying we need more ships for the navy, which is all well and good but rather pointless if we cannot man them, destroyed or not. We've had a fleet (an actual fleet) of 35+ NZLAVs in the attrition fleet for 20 years by default, that is a squadron ++ worth of soldiers we literally do not have.

 

[RegR]

We would be better off moving to an amphibious mechanised medium infantry capability because that's where our operational area is going to be - the South Pacific full of reefs, atolls and islands. So, I would rather see the LAV III replaced by the BAE ACV that's entering service with the USMC, and have your 8 - 10 dismounts in the rear with ATGM & MANPAD capabilities as part of the section. When not required the weapons can be stowed in the vehicle. The vehicle has a capacity of 13 dismounts plus 3 crew. Since the NZ Army has 10 troops to a Section, the 3 left over spaces can be used to stow weapons like ATGM, MANPADS etc. There is an ACV-30 which mounts a turret with a 30mm gun and that's what we want. The ACV will give the infantry far better protection than lightly armoured 4WD vehicles will. The protection of Russian IFVs isn't very good because they are thinly armoured especially the earlier model vehicles. The M113 is better armoured than some. The NZ LAV III is poorly armoured compared to its peers because of cost. It cost to much to install decent armour.

Maybe if we did not have so many excess vehicles to fund out of what ifs, maybes and possiblies then we could perhaps better fund what we actually do have properly and equip accordingly? Hopefully the funds from this sale of capability at least go back into funding upgrades for this capability to suit and we don't get suckered into, for example, selling 2 IPVs to get another OPV only to then lose both...

 

[Stuart M]

But the point is the "recruitment issue" is now past the point it is not even an issue anymore, it's a foregone conclusion and now the new (old) orbat. We can keep saying we can just recruit more to fill the numbers when in actual fact it has only been getting worse not better in the 20 years since we bought 105 NZLAVs and decided to motorise both battalions. We couldn't do it then and after all these years, we still can't and so again we can have all the kit in the world but if we have no pers qualified to use it then it is literally just in storage and even if anything did kick off, still would be, through lack of people to actually use it. Ukraine actually had/has one of the largest militaries in Europe with an even bigger reserve force so they have the manpower already. If we had a sizable reserve force then yea a commensurate attrition fleet would be warranted, but we don't, in fact we struggle to fill the regular slots if we are being brutally honest.

Its a bit like saying we need more ships for the navy, which is all well and good but rather pointless if we cannot man them, destroyed or not. We've had a fleet (an actual fleet) of 35+ NZLAVs in the attrition fleet for 20 years by default, that is a squadron ++ worth of soldiers we literally do not have.

If a war kicks off, and everyone nation is hovering up kit, where do you think NZ will get it from? Technology wise, It's not 1938, when kit can be churned out like the proverbial sausages, it takes significant time , made worse by lack of industrial capacity so what you are suggesting only makes sense if it's 1938. In this day and age you ether have it to hand or you won't get it at all, and if things get that bad recruitment won't be an issue, but what use is personel without equipment that cannot be had?
The strategic landscape looks more like 1914/39 than it has in decades so divesting ourselves of hard to produce equipment on the basis of recruitment problems is incredibly short-sighted under the circumstances.

 

[RegR]

If a war kicks off, and everyone nation is hovering up kit, where do you think NZ will get it from? Technology wise, It's not 1938, when kit can be churned out like the proverbial sausages, it takes significant time , made worse by lack of industrial capacity so what you are suggesting only makes sense if it's 1938. In this day and age you ether have it to hand or you won't get it at all, and if things get that bad recruitment won't be an issue, but what use is personel without equipment that cannot be had?
The strategic landscape looks more like 1914/39 than it has in decades so divesting ourselves of hard to produce equipment on the basis of recruitment problems is incredibly short-sighted under the circumstances.

You still seem to be missing the point, a LAV is not like a unimog truck, its alittle more involved. You can't just jump in it and drive around aimlessly firing off 25mm rounds at whatever you see. LAV operators run courses, conduct training and gain experience to become qualified not just grab one from out of storage and off they go, and somehow I highly doubt that QAMR are gonna run courses during a war here in NZ. Sure you could just jump in and pluck it but then that's how people, on both sides, get killed, doing more harm than good...

 

[Stuart M]

You still seem to be missing the point, a LAV is not like a unimog truck, its alittle more involved. You can't just jump in it and drive around aimlessly firing off 25mm rounds at whatever you see. LAV operators run courses, conduct training and gain experience to become qualified not just grab one from out of storage and off they go, and somehow I highly doubt that QAMR are gonna run courses during a war here in NZ. Sure you could just jump in and pluck it but then that's how people, on both sides, get killed, doing more harm than good...

I think that it is you who are missing the point: when equipment is non existant, it cannot be trained on, Q.e.d.

If you don't have equipment because a third of its just been incinerated in a war not of your choosing, you cannot fight with, on or from it. Again, Q.e.d.

But I suppose we could have recruits armed with broom sticks shout bang from converted vans before graduating to brand new Bob Semple MkII's.

As to QAMR, as it is the only formed unit with such equipment, it will probably be doing the advanced training, less any deployed sub-unit, as they are the only ones who can simulate anything close to formation level.
Similar to Timor, any serious fight will be a whole of army endeavour, but worse. To have a chance we need attrition reserves, history is hardly in dispute on this.

 

[recce.k1]

Analysis undertaken during the Defence Assessment process in 2008-09 concluded that the Army had more NZLAVs than necessary to fulfil Government-directed outputs. In 2012 the Government determined that the number of NZLAVs be reduced, and that 20 would be made available for potential sale. The number for sale was later increased to 30 in 2019.

And I cant say I agree with this - they are referencing a Defence Assessment made 13-14 years ago when the biggest issue facing us at the time was the GFC and the (then new) govt asked departments to tighten their belts. Well those days are over. Then 10 years ago when that reference to the second assessment was made a number of authoritarian governments were not the threats they are to us and/or world/Pacific stability as they are today (far from it, tens years ago we were still courting bigtime at least of one of those govts, and if not the other had NZF got its way to enact a bizarre FTA with Russia, which was scuttled thankfully). Then to cap it off our current govt criticised some of these then sell-off plans (certainly for the IPV's they did), but are now pushing it.

Honestly this is BS (post Defence Assessment 2021, with its prophetic symbolism of "stormy seas ahead") and if the NZDF/Army top brass are willing to keep going along with this BS and not call out the Govt when today's top news is the CCP & the Solomon Islands again (they could do so via their retired peers if they want to remain above the frey) then sorry to sound dramatic but they need to resign as they are not helping the NZDF at all as they are acting like subservient mindless civil servant lap dogs knifing their own ... and for what? No extra capabilities eg two IPV's gone but no OPV replacement as promised. Twenty LAV's gone and for what in their place - nothing? So what is their point, the top brass, to exist for what? At the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade select committees the top brass appear to more concerned with fulfilling govt desires related to identity politics issues - no wonder why personnel are leaving in droves they didn't enlist to become ... oh that'll do I'll stop before I regret this (sorry just incensed by yet more short sighted penny pinching that at the end of the day won't contribute sweet fa to the mountain of debt being generated by billions being splashed around for govt pet projects)!

 

[RegR]

I think that it is you who are missing the point: when equipment is non existant, it cannot be trained on, Q.e.d.

If you don't have equipment because a third of its just been incinerated in a war not of your choosing, you cannot fight with, on or from it. Again, Q.e.d.

But I suppose we could have recruits armed with broom sticks shout bang from converted vans before graduating to brand new Bob Semple MkII's.

As to QAMR, as it is the only formed unit with such equipment, it will probably be doing the advanced training, less any deployed sub-unit, as they are the only ones who can simulate anything close to formation level.
Similar to Timor, any serious fight will be a whole of army endeavour, but worse. To have a chance we need attrition reserves, history is hardly in dispute on this.

But we have the equipment now to "train on", have had for 20 years remember, 35 of them sitting in a warehouse and yet....no one is training on them because we don't A. Don't need to and B. Don't have the numbers that need training. Again, we are going to be alittle busy fighting a war in NZ to be running courses in Waiouru teaching guys from scratch the intricacies of armoured doctrine never mind effective operation of armoured vehicles from an army of barely 2 battalions. If a third of NZLAV are destroyed then that means more like half of QAMR pers are gone as well (dependant on those apparently irrelevant recruitment figures) or did they somehow destroy all these vehicles without actually killing any of the crews?? They barely have the numbers to man what they have operational now, hence the fire sale, so what makes you think this will get any better just because we have a warehouse full of them sitting around? Unless of course that is the third you are saying was "destroyed", then yes, as that will have no bearing on personnel numbers. It's just like if we had a few spare ANZAC class frigates sitting in Devonport just in case we lose a couple at sea? Who's gonna crew them? Those spare ANZAC crews we have? Or hopefully they would be taken out without any loss of life?

Again, equipment is only as good as the manpower behind it, and we have none. Just for perspective even Victor company has only just risen from the ashes after how many years so our arguably premier battalion has finally gone from 2 understrength companys to 2 and a half...

 

[recce.k1]

@ Reg, nice to see you posting again (admittedly rather passionately - you weren't a consultant for the LAV sale by chance)?

With your background what in your opinion is (or could be) the optimum role for the LAV in the NZ Army of today and tomorrow (with the planned expansion of personnel numbers)?

For example, we have 'lost' the two motorised battalion concept/plan (which could also be put down to lack of NZG funding to properly realise this, 10-13/14 years ago due to the GFC impacts and resulting operational expenditure cuts), so in an ideal world if funding was there to upskill personnel is the present model of equipping QAMR the best option? Could they expand (to soak up LAV numbers and new trained personnel)?

Or could one battalion be motorised with LAV (with the other rolled as light infantry)? Granted they couldn't sustain each other with that structure, but could it be Company deployments that are sustainable (within the Batt's)? (Well until a future govt hypothetically funds additional battalions etc)?

Remember if the DCP19 plan is to expand the Army (which is still going ahead), surely that includes all trades including LAV crew and support specialists? Hence that should help with the (lack of) personnel issues you are raising.

 

[RegR]

@ Reg, nice to see you posting again (admittedly rather passionately - you weren't a consultant for the LAV sale by chance)?

With your background what in your opinion is (or could be) the optimum role for the LAV in the NZ Army of today and tomorrow (with the planned expansion of personnel numbers)?

For example, we have 'lost' the two motorised battalion concept/plan (which could also be put down to lack of NZG funding to properly realise this, 10-13/14 years ago due to the GFC impacts and resulting operational expenditure cuts), so in an ideal world if funding was there to upskill personnel is the present model of equipping QAMR the best option? Could they expand (to soak up LAV numbers and new trained personnel)?

Or could one battalion be motorised with LAV (with the other rolled as light infantry)? Granted they couldn't sustain each other with that structure, but could it be Company deployments that are sustainable (within the Batt's)? (Well until a future govt hypothetically funds additional battalions etc)

Remember if the plan is to expand the Army, surely that includes all trades including LAV crew and support specialists?

Haha nah I'm not on commission, just after 20 years of seeing this drag out ie right from day 1, there comes a point when you just have to cut your losses and not get all nostalgic. I'm not saying we shouldn't have the LAV or LAV numbers, quite the opposite, but if it's clear we cannot man them and never will then clearly it is just a waste of resources. I would actually prefer we used them for their intended purpose, just like the late IPV, but I think after 20 years of fruitless trying it is now just a drain on otherwise useful resources much like the stored A4s became.

Equipping both battalions was the original plan, and did look good on paper, but they have never been able to maintain the numbers required to actually pull off considering we had @75 m113 with 2 crew and then tried expanding to 105 NZLAV with 3 crew, double the manpower was always going to be an ask and this was way back in the mid 2000s. They instead reverted back to the old org but still have issues maintaining operational numbers ever since, so that in itself is saying something, but to be fair that is army wide, DF wide even, which is why I am not holding my breath on the proposed increase to 6500 when we cannot even maintain current numbers. I'll be more impressed when we fully man the units we have today first before pipe dreams of any expansion. Even the powers that be must not have too much faith in the plan otherwise I think we would have then definately kept the "excess" LAVs, not as attrition hulls but with a vision to equip the newly expanded numbers, but alas, not to be.

No doubt the current org is more out of necessity rather than actual intentions and just like back in 05 the numbers just are not there to make possible. The latest excuse of MIQ being the reason for the high attrition rates is just that, an excuse, as it's always been relatively constant over the years with the odd spike here and there.

 

[Stuart M]

But we have the equipment now to "train on", have had for 20 years remember, 35 of them sitting in a warehouse and yet....no one is training on them because we don't A. Don't need to and B. Don't have the numbers that need training.

I would have considered them to be attrition reserves. You know, in case we do actually need them, because strategic circumstances are not frozen in time and do change.

" Again, we are going to be alittle busy fighting a war in NZ to be running courses in Waiouru teaching guys from scratch the intricacies of armoured doctrine never mind effective operation of armoured vehicles from an army of barely 2 battalions. If a third of NZLAV are destroyed then that means more like half of QAMR pers are gone as well (dependant on those apparently irrelevant recruitment figures) or did they somehow destroy all these vehicles without actually killing any of the crews?? They barely have the numbers to man what they have operational now, hence the fire sale, so what makes you think this will get any better just because we have a warehouse full of them sitting around?"

War has a remarkable effect on recruitment. But then, of course we can just use some good old Kiwi ingenuity to equip people and replace losses eh?

This is from 2017, its remarkably prescient in many respects if one looks at equipment losses in Ukraine.
Long Wars and Industrial Mobilization: It Won’t Be World War II Again (warontherocks.com)

"But a long war today would be totally different. In fact, after about nine months of intense peer conflict, attrition would grind the U.S. armed forces down to something resembling the military of a regional power. The Army, for example, would be armed primarily with infantry weapons with heavy firepower coming from gun trucks and a trickle of modern equipment acquired from struggling domestic production and whatever logisticians could scrounge up on the world market. "

This is why you need attrition reserves, the armed forces are not a commercial company where you can utilise just in time principles of stock management in ideal circumstances to keep your costs down. Equipment cannot be summoned with a ministerial wand.

Unless of course that is the third you are saying was "destroyed", then yes, as that will have no bearing on personnel numbers. It's just like if we had a few spare ANZAC class frigates sitting in Devonport just in case we lose a couple at sea? Who's gonna crew them? Those spare ANZAC crews we have? Or hopefully they would be taken out without any loss of life?


Now that's an interesting question. Its long been held that reserve warships are essentially a waste of time due to complexity and the issues of the marine environment, but in the centuries before nuclear weapons and a few decades after 1945 such fleets were still maintained. But with China seemingly setting up shop in the South Pacific, perhaps its time to revisit the some of the concepts of the UKs pre 1914 naval reserve fleets which were manned with nucleus crews.

Again, equipment is only as good as the manpower behind it, and we have none. Just for perspective even Victor company has only just risen from the ashes after how many years so our arguably premier battalion has finally gone from 2 understrength companys to 2 and a half...
]

Well that's fantastic news... imagine if they had no boots, uniforms, packs or rifles to issue or barracks to house them, because we had a recruitment problem so we didn't need such things... err.. they do have barracks, uniforms, rifles 'n' stuff or do they bring their own and sleep in a tent?

Frankly the strategic picture is changing for the worse with the return of territoriality aggressive totalitarian powers, and we need to change with it. Relying on commercial just in time practices, leisurely and indolent attitudes towards equipment stocks just wont cut it anymore when we need it, we will need it yesterday, not in eight years after a lengthy study and a denunciation by the Green party.

 

[Pepe le pew]

I am far from an expert on the subject but wouldn't the Capital Charge currently levied on all NZDF assets and equipment by Treasury seriously discourage the stockpiling of attrition or war reserves?

Glossary (treasury.govt.nz)
Capital charge: Ensures that prices for goods and services produced by government departments reflect full production costs; allows comparison of the costs of output production with those of other producers (whether in the public or private sector); creates an incentive for departments to make proper use of working capital and to dispose of surplus fixed assets.
Source: Putting It Together (1996)

 

[Stuart M]

I am far from an expert on the subject but wouldn't the Capital Charge currently levied on all NZDF assets and equipment by Treasury seriously discourage the stockpiling of attrition or war reserves?

Glossary (treasury.govt.nz)
Capital charge: Ensures that prices for goods and services produced by government departments reflect full production costs; allows comparison of the costs of output production with those of other producers (whether in the public or private sector); creates an incentive for departments to make proper use of working capital and to dispose of surplus fixed assets.
Source: Putting It Together (1996)

That's my understanding of it, but its not something that I view as entirely appropriate to armed forces. I say "entirely" as there does need to be a mechanism that will encourage the disposal of technologically obsolete stock, but that mechanism need not be a financial one.