New Zealand Army

[Rob c]

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)

Yep you are wright on that, However in the late 1990's even Treasury in a review of the system did state (from memory) that the system in use was not totally compatible with defence outcomes. The report was duly filed and forgotten about as per anything that may make for a better defence force, but the pollies think may cost them some vote buying money.

 

[kiwi in exile]

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.

I 2nd this and would ad that any ATGM needs to be mounted in a ready position as part of a RWS or turret. This is the way IVFs are moving.
Another option would be BVs 10 or ST kinetics Bronco. Also amphibious. Tracked vs Wheeled.

The timing of selling the LAVs when things are appearing to heat up locally... The money raised needs to be re-invested in NZDF capability.

 

[swerve]

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.

I agree. We suffer from the capital charge here in the UK, & I recall hearing of it causing the disposal or destruction of military stocks (costing money, BTW) which could have been useful.

I remember a civilian case at my last full-time employer (a mobile phone network) where someone I knew had to intervene to rescue a lot of stuff that was going to be sold as electronic scrap. I met him on the train, going home later than usual. He'd had a frantic day. It was spares which were no longer being made, for hardware that was still in use. Enough spares had deliberately been bought just before they went out of production to enable the hardware to keep working until its scheduled & budgeted retirement date . . .

The stock fell foul of warehousing's rules on turnover (too slow) & accounting putting charges on capital. It had cost hundreds of thousand of pounds, & getting rid of it would have cost millions of pounds, either in buying it back, or accelerated replacement. Keeping it was costing a few thousand a year in warehousing.

 

[RegR]

Haha, having spare boots and packs is alittle different to holding spare NZLAV and frigates ie it doesn't take as long to train a civi off the street on the specs of a boot lace or pack strap and hopefully they're not going to kill anyone trying during their 3 month basic training while the rest of the army has dispersed around NZ to fight off ze nazis...

 

[Rob c]

I agree. We suffer from the capital charge here in the UK, & I recall hearing of it causing the disposal or destruction of military stocks (costing money, BTW) which could have been useful.

From memory I remember something about 129 Challenger tanks being cut up, which were exactly the same as the ones in service. The Ukrainians could have made real good use of those and they would have been a great reserve. Been counters are so single minded and probably count their cornflakes at breakfast to make sure they are not being over/under fed.

 

[swerve]

Politicians agreed to the capital charge & its application to military stocks.

 

[Stuart M]

Haha, having spare boots and packs is alittle different to holding spare NZLAV and frigates ie it doesn't take as long to train a civi off the street on the specs of a boot lace or pack strap and hopefully they're not going to kill anyone trying during their 3 month basic training while the rest of the army has dispersed around NZ to fight off ze nazis...

Is this a party political from the Green party?

Yes there is a big difference from a pack and rifle and a LAV, one that i'm not sure you grasp; A uniform, boots, pack and rifle as standard equipment for infantry was fine in 1914, it will get you killed now; one should take next to no time to procure and the other takes years, or never in the right strategic circumstances, yet NZ is selling off what little it has without replacement.
One of the main lessons of the Ukrainian war is that you need attrition reserves or your armed forces will become ineffective in very short order. Why are you advocating a policy for NZ that will guarantee this? You say it takes three months to do basic, then what? walk into modern combat like its 1914?

And if you want nazis, or rather reds under the bed, have a look who is setting up camp in the Solomons.

 

[Stuart M]

Politicians agreed to the capital charge & its application to military stocks.

Of course, Its a nice way to have a permanent cut in defence spending without a headline cut in defence spending.

 

[Todjaeger]

Of course, Its a nice way to have a permanent cut in defence spending without a headline cut in defence spending.

The kicker for someone like myself, an interested outsider with familial ties to NZ, is that despite the Capital Charge and it's resulting reduction in Defence spending in real terms, there are those of certain ideological persuasions that still wish to see Vote Defence reduced further and/or have Defence spending directed towards more non-core Defence tasks.

This can of course work out just fine, provided everything is and remains benign. One would hope that a certain amount of pragmatism could be found amongst at least some of the leadership, so that they would realize that ideal conditions are just that, ideal, and not conditions which can be expected to remain static for planning purposes.

 

[Stuart M]

The kicker for someone like myself, an interested outsider with familial ties to NZ, is that despite the Capital Charge and it's resulting reduction in Defence spending in real terms, there are those of certain ideological persuasions that still wish to see Vote Defence reduced further and/or have Defence spending directed towards more non-core Defence tasks.

Ohh.. you've been reading Green party defence policy!

This can of course work out just fine, provided everything is and remains benign. One would hope that a certain amount of pragmatism could be found amongst at least some of the leadership, so that they would realize that ideal conditions are just that, ideal, and not conditions which can be expected to remain static for planning purposes.

I think that in NZ's case the objective is the denial of reality to justify a policy line more in tune with political preferences.

But it isn't useful to turn this into a war of ideology, she said - refusing to frame it as a conflict between autocracies and democracies.

Working with assertive China a must - New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern - BBC News

 

[ngatimozart]

I 2nd this and would ad that any ATGM needs to be mounted in a ready position as part of a RWS or turret. This is the way IVFs are moving.
Another option would be BVs 10 or ST kinetics Bronco. Also amphibious. Tracked vs Wheeled.

The timing of selling the LAVs when things are appearing to heat up locally... The money raised needs to be re-invested in NZDF capability.

Wheeled, the ACV is wheeled. There would be ATGM and MANPAD integrated into the turret as well. Whilst tracked does have certain advantages over wheeled, wheeled is quicker, less maintenance intensive, and most 8 x 8 can run on 4 wheels of the other 4 are knocked out. Lose a track and you are in trouble. The ACV is also being used by the USMC so large numbers and we can access the USN fleet train for vehicle spares. Turret spares will be a different story because the gun and ATGM will have to be compatible with Australia due to the gun ammo and missile being manufactured there. The only outlier is the MANPAD because I am looking at the pommy Starstreak.

 

[Todjaeger]

Ohh.. you've been reading Green party defence policy!

That happened one time... IIRC I needed a drink afterwards having read about "passive non-compliance with invaders" which is the sort of attitude which makes one wonder whether certain types of fungus are widely cultivated and consumed by the Greens.

 

[ngatimozart]

That happened one time... IIRC I needed a drink afterwards having read about "passive non-compliance with invaders" which is the sort of attitude which makes one wonder whether certain types of fungus are widely cultivated and consumed by the Greens.

They have been know to smoke the waccy baccy. They did have a Rasta MP as well who was right into his ganga.

 

[RegR]

Is this a party political from the Green party?

Yes there is a big difference from a pack and rifle and a LAV, one that i'm not sure you grasp; A uniform, boots, pack and rifle as standard equipment for infantry was fine in 1914, it will get you killed now; one should take next to no time to procure and the other takes years, or never in the right strategic circumstances, yet NZ is selling off what little it has without replacement.
One of the main lessons of the Ukrainian war is that you need attrition reserves or your armed forces will become ineffective in very short order. Why are you advocating a policy for NZ that will guarantee this? You say it takes three months to do basic, then what? walk into modern combat like its 1914?

And if you want nazis, or rather reds under the bed, have a look who is setting up camp in the Solomons.

And Infantry dont need 35 extra LAVs now, they barely want to use the ones we have, in fact they havnt needed 35 extra LAVs for the past 20 years, kinda the whole point. Im not advocating anything, its actually happening, you just cannot seem to grasp the concept. AGAIN, they are pointless if there is no one to use them and AGAIN, this is why they are getting rid of them FINALLY! Im not a "greenie", Im a realist, and you can talk about a war on the other side of the planet all you want and reference some out there scenario as many times as you want but that does not change the fact. So what else shall we hold onto "just in case" and just keep paying for on "what ifs", "maybes" and "perhaps". What else should we double up on out of interest? or is it only NZLAV that will be destroyed?? you know what that $19m could pay for, soldiers, infantry even, to actually use the NZLAV we have now, not a week before apparently WWIII hits NZ @anytime between now and 2042...

 

[At lakes]

Silly question time folks. The loss of LAV25 could they be compensated for in part by the purchase of the Australian Bushmaster 5.5. I believe they have a facility for a remote weapons station on top, I don't know what size of weapon, but they can still lug the grunts around with a degree of safety.

 

[RegR]

Silly question time folks. The loss of LAV25 could they be compensated for in part by the purchase of the Australian Bushmaster 5.5. I believe they have a facility for a remote weapons station on top, I don't know what size of weapon, but they can still lug the grunts around with a degree of safety.

I would happily take more Bush masters if that was an option as we would actually use these. Less complex, easier to use, more uses and arguably better protected, for NZ win win.

 

[Stuart M]

And Infantry dont need 35 extra LAVs now, they barely want to use the ones we have, in fact they havnt needed 35 extra LAVs for the past 20 years, kinda the whole point.

Serious question: How fast do you think equipment manufactures can build modern equipment?

Im not advocating anything, its actually happening, you just cannot seem to grasp the concept.

You did just that above.

AGAIN, they are pointless if there is no one to use them and AGAIN, this is why they are getting rid of them FINALLY!

Pointless?

Then can you please then account for the 2.6% loss of personnel in the average US infantry battalion in WW2, without major combat?

I would also like you account for the 14% attrition rate per day of German tanks at Kurst 1943

And while you are at it and you please show why the NZ army mysteriously lost armoured vehicles, trucks and bren carriers during WW2.

And once you have done that please demonstrate how or even if they were replaced. The case of German example should provide illuminating for you.

Im not a "greenie", Im a realist,

Apologies, I could not tell.

and you can talk about a war on the other side of the planet all you want and reference some out there scenario as many times as you want but that does not change the fact.

What fact? You have presented no 'facts' other than blindly supporting an action by government that has further reduced the NZ army to being of ornamental value only.
I have to question if you understand that the purpose of the Armed Forces is to fight, and that in that fight equipment will be destroyed, equipment that cannot be easily replaced regardless of how many soldiers you have.
So again, without LAV's/AT-AT's or whatever, shall the army march into modern combat like its 1914 again? Is that what you want? if not then please show where the equipment will come from.

So what else shall we hold onto "just in case" and just keep paying for on "what ifs", "maybes" and "perhaps". What else should we double up on out of interest? or is it only NZLAV that will be destroyed?? you know what that $19m could pay for, soldiers, infantry even, to actually use the NZLAV we have now, not a week before apparently WWIII hits NZ @anytime between now and 2042...

I point out that the entire purpose of armed forces in peace time is an exercise in "just in case". Will you now advocate for the de-facto abolition of the armed forces, as per Green party policy "because what else shall we hold onto "just in case" and just keep paying for on "what ifs", "maybes" and "perhaps"." You know, like the NZ army?

 

[RegR]

Serious question: How fast do think equipment manufactures can build modern equipment?



You did just that above.

Who cares? What modern equipment are we getting equipment manufacturers to build us anyway that we don't already have? I'd rather we "built" more modern equipment to actually use now rather than to hide away in the basement as a back up, we literally cannot afford that little want.

 

[Stuart M]

Who cares? What modern equipment are we getting equipment manufacturers to build us anyway that we don't already have? I'd rather we "built" more modern equipment to actually use now rather than to hide away in the basement as a back up, we literally cannot afford that little want.

"Who cares"?

The soldiers who you want to trudge into combat like a repeat of the Somme?

 

[RegR]

"Who cares"?

The soldiers who you want to trudge into combat like a repeat of the Somme?

The soldiers will use the LAV they already have....getting pretty over dramatic there fulla.