NZDF General discussion thread

[t68]

Personally I think they need a 105mm SPG on a 8 x 8 wheeled vehicle, a SPAAG on a 8 x 8 wheeled vehicle and a mobile SAM system maybe Mistril based.*
.

The CV90 family of AFV have all that, from what I have read from other sites is that Army have a preference to ditch the NZLAV and go all tracked with a couple of Squadrons worth of Bushmaster PMV in CSSB

Personally I would like to see Army re-establish a third regular Ranger Battlion for which A Company trained in that role some time ago, that would give a more broader capabilty *for Army as they can be the primary POE unit

 

[Hone C]

Personally I would like to see Army re-establish a third regular Ranger Battlion for which A Company trained in that role some time ago, that would give a more broader capabilty *for Army as they can be the primary POE unit

A fourth manoeuvre Battalion is not going to happen. Just raising and maintaining 1 RNZIR, 2/1 RNZIR and QAMR at Battalion strength under the current level of funding will be difficult enough.

The 'Enhanced Infantry Company' is probably as close as we will see in the short to medium term to the old Ranger/POE Company. It would be good to see something similar to what the British have done with 1 PARA, a dedicated Special Forces Support Group, eventually.

As always, it comes down to time and treasure invested in recruiting, training and retaining the troops,equipping them properly, and developing doctrine. There are a number of glaring gaps in capabilities and training that are more pressing for the very restricted resources available.

As has been said before many times on this thread, the political classes have reduced or cut capabilities, leaving the NZDF to atrophy to the point that it risks policy failure and becoming a liability to our friends and partners. We, the NZ public, have allowed this situation to develop, but unfortunately prefer to bury our collective heads in the sand rather than address it.

 

[t68]

A fourth manoeuvre Battalion is not going to happen. Just raising and maintaining 1 RNZIR, 2/1 RNZIR and QAMR at Battalion strength under the current level of funding will be difficult enough.*

Agree current funding levels are too low*

The 'Enhanced Infantry Company' is probably as close as we will see in the short to medium term to the old Ranger/POE Company. It would be good to see something similar to what the British have done with 1 PARA, a dedicated Special Forces Support Group, eventually.*

No sense having a single company capability if it can not be rotated as part of a QRF

As always, it comes down to time and treasure invested in recruiting, training and retaining the troops,equipping them properly, and developing doctrine. There are a number of glaring gaps in capabilities and training that are more pressing for the very restricted resources available.*

To true but it makes no sense in having the capability if manpower resources are inadequate to sustain a desired effect

As has been said before many times on this thread, the political classes have reduced or cut capabilities, leaving the NZDF to atrophy to the point that it risks policy failure and becoming a liability to our friends and partners. We, the NZ public, have allowed this situation to develop, but unfortunately prefer to bury our collective heads in the sand rather than address it.

Let us pounder the words of the last capability plan,

"The importance of the combat capabilities of the NZDF cannot be understated. It is these capabilities which underpin the overall utility, depth, and effectiveness of the NZDF, and thus its value to the Government and our partners. The NZDF must have the combination of personnel, equipment, training, and experience of working with other forces to allow the Government to make a credible valued contribution when it needs or wishes to do so, including in higher intensity environments."

Hollow words indeed, it's easy to talk the talk but it's time to walk the walk!

 

[Toblerone]

What realistic dangers does NZ face that would necessitate increased military spending?

(I have no idea, I'm on the other side of the world, heh)

 

[t68]

What realistic dangers does NZ face that would necessitate increased military spending?

(I have no idea, I'm on the other side of the world, heh)

Direct threats about the same as Australia at the present time, but situations can change rapidly and without warning. This interview with the ADF Cheif of Army gives a good illustration on why defence and politicians must not become complacent.


Army must be prepared for major land wars, Chief Angus Campbell says | theage.com.au

 

[Todjaeger]

Direct threats about the same as Australia at the present time, but situations can change rapidly and without warning. This interview with the ADF Cheif of Army gives a good illustration on why defence and politicians must not become complacent.


Army must be prepared for major land wars, Chief Angus Campbell says | theage.com.au

The dangers to a nation do not necessarily have be a direct threat of invasion. With NZ being an island nation, cutting the SLOC would have a direct and very unpleasant impact on all aspects of Kiwi life. Given what the SLOC is to major markets for Kiwi goods, or for materials and goods that NZ imports...

People always seem to look out and see the ocean as a protective moat around their nation, but they also always seem to forget that same protective moat can also function as an unobstructed route right back to their homes.

Right now, trade between NZ and eastern Australia, the US, and western South & Central Americas would be difficult to stop by cutting the SLOC. Trade with Asia, the Mideast, Africa, or Europe OTOH... a number of potential choke points, and often in or near contested areas.

 

[ngatimozart]

The dangers to a nation do not necessarily have be a direct threat of invasion. With NZ being an island nation, cutting the SLOC would have a direct and very unpleasant impact on all aspects of Kiwi life. Given what the SLOC is to major markets for Kiwi goods, or for materials and goods that NZ imports...

People always seem to look out and see the ocean as a protective moat around their nation, but they also always seem to forget that same protective moat can also function as an unobstructed route right back to their homes.

Right now, trade between NZ and eastern Australia, the US, and western South & Central Americas would be difficult to stop by cutting the SLOC. Trade with Asia, the Mideast, Africa, or Europe OTOH... a number of potential choke points, and often in or near contested areas.

New Zealanders in general have a condition called sea blindness which for an island nation is somewhat ludicrous, especially a nation that prides itself in inshore and offshore yacht racing. NZ is the most geographically isolated nation in the world with our closest nation being Australia, approximately 960 nautical miles away. 99.5% of our trade by volume and 74% by value is seaborne hence our SLOC are our Achilles heel. Hence one would think that our navy and air force would have strong maritime surveillance and warfare capabilities, but no. The 1000 mile wide most is perceived as our greatest defence but it's turned into our greatest weakness and a millstone around our defence and security neck, because we are no longer self sufficient and are totally reliant upon our trade.

Todj is reasonably correct in his comments regarding our SLOC. Our largest trading partner is China and we are also very dependent upon energy imports. Whilst we do have some oil extraction here it is not the light sweet crude that is necessary for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. So we export our oil. Years ago we were self sufficient in basic things such as food clothing and housing etc. Now we don't have a clothing manufacturing industry, a reasonable amount of material for our housing industry is imported and we import a lot of food. Kiwis just take it for granted that these items will appear and continue to appear in our shops and stores. They will only whinge when their computers, TVs and iPhones etc., stop arriving at the wharves. Then they will look for someone to blame, but not themselves of course.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

I do remember marches and protests against the axing of the skyhawks, but was there a referendum on it?And didnt the public get a say with the white paper supposed to be released? it would certainly be in the public interest to do so with similar matters,in future.

 

[Todjaeger]

I do remember marches and protests against the axing of the skyhawks, but was there a referendum on it?And didnt the public get a say with the white paper supposed to be released? it would certainly be in the public interest to do so with similar matters,in future.

The public can make submissions to the White Paper. AFAIK there is no obligation on the part of Gov't to do anything but read the submissions. Given how ignorant and/or apathetic the average Kiwi seems to be about defence matters, it might be a good thing that Gov' is not required base policy off public submissions.

Keep in mind what the Green Party's defence plank had been a few years ago. IIRC it had been to offer 'passive resistance' to an invader. From my POV, to advocate such a national policy would require inspiration from smoking, snorting, swallowing, or injecting funny things, plus monumental ignorance and the constant wearing of rose-tinted glasses.

 

[kiwi in exile]

The CV90 family of AFV have all that, from what I have read from other sites is that Army have a preference to ditch the NZLAV and go all tracked with a couple of Squadrons worth of Bushmaster PMV in CSSB

Are you talking NZDF? Can you provide links? I agree bushmasters would be useful, but i thought we were happy to stay with wheeled. The ADF seems to be sticking with tracked for their Land400 replacements (see recent issues of Defence Technology Review). Ditching/replacing the LAVs in the near future would be hugely costly in a period where we have a number of expensive acquistions on the cards.
However, I have often thought a small number of ST Kinetics Bronoc would be useful. Amphibious, mortar carrier versions, etc.

 

[kiwi in exile]

NZ cannot mount an amphibious op against a relatively undefended enemy, even if it tried.

Lets see how Southern Katipo turns out.

The next point is that said force will have no Kiwi air cover, offensive or defensive, because NZ does not possess such capabilities. It can maybe field overhead ISR with the Orions and they could drop Mk82 500lb dumb bombs, but that's it. The Sprites have Penguin but AFAIA they cannot be used against land targets, plus Treasury would have an absolute hissy fit about them actually being used There are also the pintle mounted MAG58s on the NH90s, Sprites and A109s, however these are 7.62mm and not great hitting power. That is why the RN, I believe, has gone to the M3M .50 cal for its pintle mounts on its helos. Think the Danes have gone the same way too.

A strategically placed Mk82 might prove quite useful. I would like to see them fitted with GPS (becomming JDAMs). Apparently its reasonably affordable. I would also like to see some of our helos (Seasprites) fitted with at least APKWS, possibly even hellfires/brimstones/JAGMs. And definitely 50's. Better standoff range, penetration and stopping power on lite vehicles, troops in cover, boats compared to 7.62mm. I have also previously suggested some form of ship bourne UAV for persistent ISR and lite CAS.

Re the ACF: I feel that we could meet our strategic needs and policy objectives without having to spend billions on this. This topic keeps comming up again and again. You could make similar arguments about subs.

 

[ngatimozart]

Lets see how Southern Katipo turns out.

Southern Katipo is not designed to test an opposed landing and the subsequent military subjugation and occupation of a hostile nation.

A strategically placed Mk82 might prove quite useful. I would like to see them fitted with GPS (becomming JDAMs). Apparently its reasonably affordable. I would also like to see some of our helos (Seasprites) fitted with at least APKWS, possibly even hellfires/brimstones/JAGMs. And definitely 50's. Better standoff range, penetration and stopping power on lite vehicles, troops in cover, boats compared to 7.62mm. I have also previously suggested some form of ship bourne UAV for persistent ISR and lite CAS.

JDAM kits are expensive and we would have to fund the integration program which would be expensive, too expensive for just NZs Orions. Same for fitting other weapons to the Sprites except replacing the MAG58 with the M3M50Cal. You have to drop many dumb bombs to achieve anywhere near the same target destruction results than you do with one smart bomb. Dropping dumb bombs onto a target is not easy and the Orions would have to do it at low level to achieve any decent accuracy. That puts them into AAA and MANPAD range and that is not a really acceptable risk unless it is an extremely high value target.

Re the ACF: I feel that we could meet our strategic needs and policy objectives without having to spend billions on this. This topic keeps comming up again and again. You could make similar arguments about subs.

The point I make is a well balanced defence force that is capable of undertaking and achieving the policy objectives set by the NZG. For example, having the ACF gave the NZG diplomacy and policy options it no longer has now. The axing of it reduced the mana of NZ in the eyes of our friends and neighbours especially those in Asia. It also has called into question our reliability as a friend and ally. The monies could be made available if the govt decided to do so, because in the end it is a govt decision. They certainly make monies available for any other projects that they like. If you are worried about the cost of funding, the cost can be spread over, say a 20 year period and it is just like paying your mortgage or car payments.

With help from another forum member, I recently calculated the annual cost of funding a recapitalisation on NZDF to bring its capabilities and equipment up to what we believe to be an acceptable and sustainable standard. Calculated over a 30 year period at 3% funding cost per annum the annual figure was NZ$1 billion per annum. That figure included the term of life costs. Hence it is achievable if there is the political will to do so. Everybody seems to think that we have to front up with all the recap cash straight away, but in reality, the actual cost can be spread over x number of financial years.

 

[swerve]

JDAM kits are expensive compared to dumb bombs, but cheaper than just about any other PGM.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

The public can make submissions to the White Paper. AFAIK there is no obligation on the part of Gov't to do anything but read the submissions. Given how ignorant and/or apathetic the average Kiwi seems to be about defence matters, it might be a good thing that Gov' is not required base policy off public submissions.

Keep in mind what the Green Party's defence plank had been a few years ago. IIRC it had been to offer 'passive resistance' to an invader. From my POV, to advocate such a national policy would require inspiration from smoking, snorting, swallowing, or injecting funny things, plus monumental ignorance and the constant wearing of rose-tinted glasses.

Ha, i think the majority of us here aren't Green Party supporters ,i certainly had my say.They are fringe party, thank christ for that!:smilie

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Southern Katipo is not designed to test an opposed landing and the subsequent military subjugation and occupation of a hostile nation.

JDAM kits are expensive and we would have to fund the integration program which would be expensive, too expensive for just NZs Orions. Same for fitting other weapons to the Sprites except replacing the MAG58 with the M3M50Cal. You have to drop many dumb bombs to achieve anywhere near the same target destruction results than you do with one smart bomb. Dropping dumb bombs onto a target is not easy and the Orions would have to do it at low level to achieve any decent accuracy. That puts them into AAA and MANPAD range and that is not a really acceptable risk unless it is an extremely high value target.

The point I make is a well balanced defence force that is capable of undertaking and achieving the policy objectives set by the NZG. For example, having the ACF gave the NZG diplomacy and policy options it no longer has now. The axing of it reduced the mana of NZ in the eyes of our friends and neighbours especially those in Asia. It also has called into question our reliability as a friend and ally. The monies could be made available if the govt decided to do so, because in the end it is a govt decision. They certainly make monies available for any other projects that they like. If you are worried about the cost of funding, the cost can be spread over, say a 20 year period and it is just like paying your mortgage or car payments.

With help from another forum member, I recently calculated the annual cost of funding a recapitalisation on NZDF to bring its capabilities and equipment up to what we believe to be an acceptable and sustainable standard. Calculated over a 30 year period at 3% funding cost per annum the annual figure was NZ$1 billion per annum. That figure included the term of life costs. Hence it is achievable if there is the political will to do so. Everybody seems to think that we have to front up with all the recap cash straight away, but in reality, the actual cost can be spread over x number of financial years.

So that would mean not just replacing lost capabilities, but a significant expansion of it across all services, and of personnel too? Think the elephant in the room would be recruitment ,more so than funding, given the apathy out there.

 

[Todjaeger]

Ha, i think the majority of us here aren't Green Party supporters ,i certainly had my say.They are fringe party, thank christ for that!:smilie

I sort of suspected as much.

While I agree that they are largely fringe, at least in terms of policies, they seem significant enough to have some influence on national policy. This might be a result of certain electoral laws and policies which (and I admit, my understand of this portion of NZ law is fuzzy to say the least) appear to be setup so that minority parties have a certain minimum level of participation in Parliament. From what I understand, the various minority parties tend to get a larger number of seats, and thus a larger representation, then either their percentage of votes or party membership percentage of the total population, would normally suggest.

 

[Hone C]

I sort of suspected as much.

While I agree that they are largely fringe, at least in terms of policies, they seem significant enough to have some influence on national policy. This might be a result of certain electoral laws and policies which (and I admit, my understand of this portion of NZ law is fuzzy to say the least) appear to be setup so that minority parties have a certain minimum level of participation in Parliament. From what I understand, the various minority parties tend to get a larger number of seats, and thus a larger representation, then either their percentage of votes or party membership percentage of the total population, would normally suggest.

NZ has a proportional system, the number of seats each party holds is more or less the same as their percentage of the national vote (providing they win a constituency seat or get over 5% of the total national vote). It's not that the minority parties have more representatives, but that they are often left holding the balance of power if major parties fail to win a majority. Given defence has such a low priority, it's easily sacrificed in any coalition or confidence and supply negotiations.

Where parties like the Greens have a greater relative influence is in the mainstream media and on social media, in student politics and protest action, where a vocal minority can get a disproportionate amount of the attention.

 

[40 deg south]

NZ has a proportional system, the number of seats each party holds is more or less the same as their percentage of the national vote (providing they win a constituency seat or get over 5% of the total national vote). It's not that the minority parties have more representatives, but that they are often left holding the balance of power if major parties fail to win a majority. Given defence has such a low priority, it's easily sacrificed in any coalition or supply and demand negotiations.

Where parties like the Greens have a greater relative influence is in the mainstream media and on social media, in student politics and protest action, where a vocal minority can get a disproportionate amount of the attention.

I was just about to respond to Todjaeger when I realised you'd already done it.

By way of additional clarification, the proportional system makes it almost impossible for a single party to get a majority. So all governments are coalitions.
There is pretty much no way the major centre-left party (Labour) could form government without the Green Party. This would give the Greens the ability to have a significant impact on defence policy in a future Labour government, if they chose. Labour itself is also pretty hostile to defence spending, but that is a separate issue.

Hone is right about the ability of the Greens and allies to mobilise supporters for demonstrations, irrespective of whether an issue has any real traction with the public. Saw this on the TV news last night.
Protesters clash with police at defence industry forum in Wellington | Stuff.co.nz

 

[t68]

Saw this on the TV news last night.
Protesters clash with police at defence industry forum in Wellington | Stuff.co.nz

Intersting line from*Former brigadier Charles Lott

"In our business there are no prizes for second place – if you're second place, you've lost."

I think that says it all!

 

[Zero Alpha]

Where parties like the Greens have a greater relative influence is in the mainstream media and on social media, in student politics and protest action, where a vocal minority can get a disproportionate amount of the attention.

I'd argue Greens have had the least influence in Parliament. They're the least successful parliamentary party - currently 16 years in Parliament, and not one year in Government. As long as they continue to rule out ever working with National, Labour will take them for granted. There might be a few beads and trinkets thrown at them, but they don't carry enough weight to get any serious concessions across the line.