Angry wont do better than his predecessor, not in any way that counts, despite being better informed and the same is true of National, the longterm trajectory of defence capability and capacity is downwards and it's deliberate.
NZ has a truly wonderful capacity to generate many studies that have may fine buzz words that gets people chattering away, and yet actual warfighting capacity keeps going down.Let's wait and see chaps ... I mean if we see the new MinDef with a grin on his face firing a 50 cal from the hatch during the Bushmaster acceptance ceremony in April then perhaps all will bode well for the future!
Seriously though there is a Defence Policy and Strategy Review underway so I doubt there will much to announce this year (and up until the election in Oct anyway). The review will be looking at a Future Force structure so those wider discussions (with Defence, Govt, Allies etc) will be of greater interest and importance (I doubt the MinDef will have too much influence (in a negative sense) as the review/scope is wider than himself - suggest his main role will to be supportive of any preliminary findings and outcomes and to take these to Cabinet for debate or agreement etc).
Let's get an insight into current Defence thinking, priorities and areas of concern. From the 2021/22 Annual review of the New Zealand Defence Force which was held late last year (an initial transcript has appeared online).
Projects: There are a number of projects underway or in the pipeline.
Defence Capability Management System: Has been reviewed and is working well (has received praise in terms of public sector deliverables).
Capabilities and increasing global geopolitical tensions: Govt MP Ibrahim Omer asked about NZ preparing for these scenarios.
On the NH90 (no major concerns being flagged at this/that point in time):
Now of course the CDF's comments were made last year. We have now learnt very recently that the AusGovt has approved new Blackhawks to replace the remaining Army MRH-90's and in a relatively quick time-frame too. So for NZ presumably this will be revisted (now that NHIndustries is losing a major role with the ADF) and how that will continue or impact support for NZ (sure they may say "yes", if so critically to what extent)?
Also asking because I had come round to thinking perhaps NZ should look at acquiring the ADF's 8 (ex-RAN) MRH-90's that are reportedly being maintained for sale (see recent ADF threads) to supplement the NZDF's existing 8(+1 attrition) NH-90's. As that would give NZDF additional capacity to better support concurrent overseas deployments and local Army training needs. Heck NZDF could even base a couple back in the South Island again for rapid response eg CT/HADR/Army support (or even pre-position 3 or 4 of them in Queensland, Australia, for rapid overseas deployment (eg hitch a ride with ADF C-17s when something is hitting the fan in Asia/Pacific). Otherwise could have some spare attrition airframes to ensure quick access to spares/parts availability. But in light of AusGovt's decision to fast-track the Blackhawk acquisition perhaps this sort of suggestion needs re-evaluating etc.
Perhaps in NZ's favor to an extent is that Airbus bought SafeAir (aircraft maintenance company), Airbus also have major on-base contracts to support the NH-90, AW-109 and T-6C Texan, so it is in their best interests to succeed.
On the Seasprite (yes there are some major concerns being flagged):
Further Seasprite questions from Opposition MP's:
Response by CDF:
CAF has stated (Air Force News) that the Seasprite replacement project is well underway so expect an early decision on a replacement type. On whatever is assessed/chosen, it is imperative an extra capability for the replacement is that it has a dipping sonar (as relying on visual contacts as currently with the Seasprite is archaic in this networked day and age. At least they can carry sonarbouys, can't they)? The logical choice would surely be a capability interoperable with the ADF with their Romeo Seahawks? This would standardise (and fast-track) training, support and munitions etc. (The NZDF Annual Review noted and thanked the ADF and USN for assisting with fast-tracking NZ's P-8 training programmes, which reinforces the benefits of being interoperable with NZ's closest allies as much as practical).
Finally lots of other discussion about personnel attrition issues (still concerning), incoming project capabilities (P-8, C-130, Network Enabled Army etc), supposedly where NZDF fits in with ADF planning and love the response about greater use of simulators (for a small defence force) to offset "emissions" as per Green Party concerns!
Sadly that is true of many pollies and it isn’t restricted to NZ.
To the Civil Service, a documentary
IIRC the review is due to be released in October.
IIRC the only difference between the RAN and Aussie Army MRH-90s is the name painted on the side.
Of course Airbus could bring the Brisbane NH90 facility to NZ. Sure room could be found at Woodbourne for it.
Same problems that they had with the SH-2G(NZ); Kaman providing inadequate after sales service, and supply of parts.
The SH-2G(I) that we have do carry sonar buoys.
Yes, the personnel attrition problem. They know the problem and they know how to mitigate it. WRT pay and conditions, the NZG has a reputation for a long time (1945 onwards) of being stingy with pay and allowances. Between 1946 and 1948 there were three separate mutinies specifically over pay and conditions. That was at a time when mutiny was punishable by death, so that illustrates how serious the problem was.
Not so sure of this as setting it up would take years to get the culture on maintenance heading in the right direction as well as pilot skills. There would be most of the current people in these roles would not want to transfer to the army as in the air force the army is considered to lack any sense of humor.
NG has made some excellent points and I'll try and respond tonight. But (NZ) Army Aviation is a different matter. I agree I don't think Army would have the technical competencies to fully take over helicopter operations (they had issues crewing their LAV's, which is a lot simpler than an attack helicopter to operate and maintain). They are focused on infantry (which is crucial) and have also ditched a lot of other "techie type" capabilities in recent decades (coastal defence systems, tanks, FSV's, Mistral sam system, Bell 47 air observation etc).
Yes I forgot about that earlier foray, but times are different and NZDF is far more joint than it was during the 1970s. I have always thought that in things like the ARH and / or rotary wing battlefield airlift, should be operated by people who think army. They would see and react to moving battlefield situations better than air force personnel because of their training, ground warfare education, and experience.
The Russo - Ukraine war has really illustrated the importance and necessity of both UAVs and UGVs. We will require them to use and at the same time, require a defence against enemy ones.Today's Army is finding a niche with UAV's and loitering munitions, these areas need supporting and expanding. The USMC has been an important visitor to our shores in recent years demonstrating these types of capabilities during exercises.
Kamikaze drones may soon be part of NZ’s arsenal
The New Zealand Defence Force is one step closer to acquiring lethal drones, as a trial begins for an Australian-made loitering munition being...www.odt.co.nz
An important point and questions. IMHO I will provide how I think that the army & NZDF should proceed.
We could and should have a SPG/H capability and it doesn't need to be tracked. There are capable wheeled 155mm SPG/H available that would fit well within a light infantry concept. Same with rocket artillery, such as HIMARS or the SK K239 Chunmoo. I actually think that the Chunmoo would be a better platform than HIMARS because it has better capability and would be acquired quicker due to HIMARS production backlog and long order list. Also being a US weapons system the US Army and USMC will have the highest priority. Foreign orders will be filled a lot slower, meaning longer waiting times.
The NH90 fleet has to be increased because at eight it is less than the bare minimum required. Ideally another five - eight medium sized helos should be acquired. We should also acquire an ARH, preferably one that is already marinised and in operation. I think that the AH-1Z Viper would be the optimal solution. ARH's are not just for shooting and blowing things up, but the R in ARH means reconnaissance and that's where they are the eyes of the ground force commander. They also are used to escort utility helicopters in hostile environments, with the French using Tigers to escort NH90s in Mali. Vietnam and many other wars / bun fights since have shown the vulnerability of utility helos in combat situations.
Unlike the ADF we aren't flush with cash.
Cash isn’t a bottomless pit for anyone - but economies of scale through joint orders, common parts, training, and sustainment contracts have ongoing cost benefits for both AU and NZ. The whole picture needs to be considered beyond sticker prices.
Funnily enough such an idea has been tried before. Didn't work.
I fully agree with what you have written but the major problem is always going to be that lack of "political will" from NZ politicians who have serious lack of understanding of local and also world events! and also anything that actually goes "Bang"!! the NZ public is very slowly waking up to the idea of world events.
I think you are quite right and reading Army aviation history that certainly was their thinking back in the 50's/60's.
I love your opinions and insight, but this is an incredibly lazy take … If something doesn’t work the first time due to poor leadership it’s not worth trying again? Come on mate …
This thought does raise the question of what additional capabilities would be required to support littoral manoeuvre and amphibious raiding by NZDF? To me it suggests that vessels capable of moving and supporting the ground forces would be needed, and not just 1 or 2.
The Nordic countries have done quite a lot in this field. They even have their own web page on collaboration: About NORDEFCO - Nordefco.
)I think that what is the stumbling block in the road to high levels of integration between Australia and NZ is the significant level patriotic independence felt in both countries. Australia wants to rule the roost and NZ want to maintain their independent say. In other words Australia want to be big brother and NZ is not going to live in big bro's shadow.