NZDF General discussion thread

[Rob c]

What about the Damen Enforcer series, available from 120 meters to 180 meters in length, fits what we require as both supplement to Canterbury and replace of.
Then add 3x Arrowhead 120 and 3x Harry de Wolfe class OPV’s and we have compact modern navy.

I am personally against the Harry de Wolfe type of OPV as during conflict they are of little use and are to slow. To my way of thinking the OPV's need a reasonable amout of speed and the capability to be up graded for limited combat abilities close to home ,in the event of conflict. We do not have the numbers of combat ships to have the luxury of having ships of no value in the event of conflict. I also favour the Arrowhead 140 as it greater size gives it more ability to be up graded in the future.
Our armed forces need to be focused on the defence of NZ as their primary task, with regional defence the next priority before we look at anything else due to our small size and budget.(which is desperately in need of a substantial increase)

 

[John Fedup]

I am personally against the Harry de Wolfe type of OPV as during conflict they are of little use and are to slow. To my way of thinking the OPV's need a reasonable amout of speed and the capability to be up graded for limited combat abilities close to home ,in the event of conflict. We do not have the numbers of combat ships to have the luxury of having ships of no value in the event of conflict. I also favour the Arrowhead 140 as it greater size gives it more ability to be up graded in the future.
Our armed forces need to be focused on the defence of NZ as their primary task, with regional defence the next priority before we look at anything else due to our small size and budget.(which is desperately in need of a substantial increase)

The HDW AOPS are too slow and underarmed which is why Canada has another OPV program for the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to replace our Kingston class. For the Arctic they are ok except for the 25 mm gun. Have my doubts as to whether the new OPVs will be properly armed though. For the Southern ocean the HDW would be better than an Arrowhead 140 at least from an ice capability POV. It is a 6,000 ton plus, not sure what the AH 140 is.

 

[ngatimozart]

What about the Damen Enforcer series, available from 120 meters to 180 meters in length, fits what we require as both supplement to Canterbury and replace of.
Then add 3x Arrowhead 120 and 3x Harry de Wolfe class OPV’s and we have compact modern navy.

No because you are introducing multiple new types into the fleet instead of consolidating hull types. Replace the IPV / OPV fleet with a single class of corvettes that have significant commonality with the frigates i.e., a mini me.

The RAN Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet intention is to acquire 11 patrol frigates with the following being short listed:

• German MEKO A-200 (another source).
• Japanese Mogami 30FFM (another source).
• South Korean Daegu class.
  • FFX Batch II
  • Batch III
• Spanish Navantia ALFA3000

Of these four types, I think that the outstanding one is the MEKO A-200 Class, followed by the Mogami Class. Both are currently in service with other navies. The Daegu FFX Batch II is also in service with another navy, but at present the Batch III is a paper design. IMHO the Navantia ALFA 3000 is a paper design, too small for Indo-Pacific oceans, and the design appears cramped with not a lot of room for future upgrades. It might work for European and Mediterranean navies who don't venture far from home, but one look at a map of the Pacific Ocean illustrates the distances involved. The fact that it isn’t in service with any navy significantly increases the risk. Besides Navantia didn’t come through the Hobart DDG build with flying colours; it left a lot to be desired.

I like the Mogami because it's definitely designed for the future, and such an acquisition would be diplomatically a very good move, if Australia wants to increase and deepen defence ties with Japan. However, I think that the MEKO A-200 would be a better choice because of the four types I think that the MEKO A-200 is the least risky design. The original Anzac class is an original MEKO 200 design, so the RAN already has experience of that design. The Anzac Class build was successful and came in under budget and within time.

I am aware that the MEKO A-200 can carry 32 VLS cells, however they are Sylver VLS and not the MK-41 VLS. I suspect that the MK-41 VLS for the patrol frigate will be most likely 24, because 32 could be a squeeze and 16 is definitely not enough in the modern environment. I also suspect that the most cells, if not all, will be tactical length rather than strike length. However, if the RAN intend using the likes of SM-3, SM-6, VLA, or LRASM on these frigates some strike length cells would have to be included. I think that 16 NSM will be the fit out as well.

I understand that the RNZN is keen on the Babcocks Arrowhead AH 140 design, and it is currently in service with one navy and being built by three separate nations. I like the AH140 because of its versatility, design philosophy and that it has room for future upgrades. There is also the AH120 which is a corvette paper design offering synergies / commonality / compatibility with the AH140. In a NZ context we should replace both our OPV and IPV fleet with corvettes, and ones built for the Southern Ocean. Unfortunately, the AH140 didn't make the Australian short list, but maybe that will change, and I hope so. Regardless of what the RNZN wants in its heart of hearts, the Cabinet will make the final decision and I strongly suspect, because of the recent ANZMIN announcements, that it will follow the RAN patrol frigate lead.

In that case I hope that the MEKO A-200 design is the one that the Australians choose, because of the MEKO A-100 which would give is synergies / commonality / compatibility with the MEKO A200. As mentioned above, the MEKO offers least risk and recent NZ govts are risk adverse with regard to defence acquisitions - something that's taken them decades to figure out. The MEKO A-200 currently costs about €500 million (about NZ$880 million) each. What is not stated is whether or not this is the sailaway cost or includes the Term of Life Costs (TOLC). Of course, every nation does its acquisition costings differently and the NZ Govt defence acquisition costings always includes the TOLC. Just to confound the reader, the NZ Govt also calculates the Whole of Life Costs (WOLC) and there is a propound difference between TOLC and WOLC. TOLC is for the duration of service with NZDF, whilst WOLC is for the whole life of the platform from its acquisition by the NZDF until its final disposal. The corvettes could be the MEKO A-100 design which is a corvette having synergies / commonality / compatibility with the A-200 design. It too is in service with other navies.

I have been given to understand that the NZ govt has budgeted NZ$4 billion for the Anzac Class frigate replacement, and if the above cost is correct, theoretically we could acquire four. Four Patrol Frigates and eight corvettes would give the RNZN significant combat capability. Of course, the corvettes are not expected to take on the likes of Peoples Republic of China (PRC) Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) or Russian guided missile cruisers (CCG); rather they can be used for convoy escort and in the constabulary role. Six would replace the Protector Class two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) and four Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPV). Hull numbers Seven and Eight would be modified to include dynamic positioning, Multi Beam Echo Sounder, a moon pool, a timber covered work area on the quarter deck, a crane with 100 tonne safe working limit (SWL) and a second crane with 25 tonne SWL etc. Use of the SH Cube modular system would enable quick rerolling of these ships, as it would all ships across the fleet. This would also give Matataua resilience because it’s not relying on specialist ship as it does with Manawanui IV.

Before the first Anzac frigate (Te Kaha? – second ship of RAN/RNZN Anzac Class) retires eight EXLS VLS should be fitted to Aotearoa and the Sea Ceptor missiles transferred to Aotearoa. EXLS is a standalone three cell VLS that doesn’t penetrate the deck and basically can be hung anywhere on the ship. EXLS should not be confused with the Host Extensible Launch System (ExLS), which is a plug in system that slots in both MK-41 VLS and MK-57 VLS cells. The radar and (Electro Optical Tracking System (EOTS) system from Te Kaha could then be transferred to Aotearoa upon Te Kaha’s decommissioning. This is to give Aotearoa its own air defence (AD) capability. Its Anti Aircraft Artillery (AAA) gun armament should also be substantially increased. Experience from the Russo Ukraine War, and the current Houthi attacks against shipping in the Red Sea, illustrates the necessity of the likes of 30mm auto cannon with air burst ammunition, and Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities being the best defence against Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Uncrewed Surface Vessels (USV). It isn’t very cost effective to use a $5 million missile to shoot down a $1,000 UAV or USV.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think you are referring to a LPD? As per DCP 19:


But what Lucas is referring to is something else, a replacement type for the OPV/MCM/diving role. Hence his suggestion of the Damen Crossover SF123. Which ticks a lot of boxes and is perhaps more resilient than a COTS OPV etc. So hypothetically it could be a nice addition to the fleet even though it's technically a non-combatant.

(Noting that other posters eg NgatiMozart have suggested the AH 120, which could compliment any hypothetical AH 140 acquisition to replace the ANZAC's, the advantage being two similar platforms in terms of support and maintenance requirements).

To me both are great options, but with Damen now building a "Multi-Purpose Support Ship" for the Portuguese Navy, I'm wondering whether a step change in thinking is required to something else purposely designed to support new generation/emerging technologies such as UUV/USV/UAV, which would increase the RNZN's Patrol and ISR warfare support capabilities across the undersea, surface and air spectrums?

That it could also be used for HADR support is an added bonus in terms of political support, particulary if it is already on station patrolling the Pacific etc. Other features include dive/MCM/support and provision to carry 16m boading "boats" eg MCM/CB90 etc.

Not saying it is the ideal vessel (and it may very well not be) but just putting it out there. Plus I think such a vessel could futher be improved for RNZN/Pacific ops use. Eg mine-laying capability, perhaps also the ability to deploy a towed array to collect/process undersea data/eavesdrop (SURTASS-E ?).

Perhaps also a longer flight deck (with an extended hanger) to accomodate two helicopters could be more practical to support concurrent helo operations (so perhaps a slightly longer vessel). Granted whether the RNZN would require so much space for UAV's could be debatable (perhaps that space could be reduced - or kept as is to allow for the stowage of additional containers to be transported to and lifted off at a remote port, or other modular capabilities eg be that SH Defence Cube systems or modular air defence if there was ever a need for such.

But does it have a well dock. It's a waste of time buying a vessel without a well dock. That's why the 2019 DCP specifically mentioned LPD and an example. If we don't have a well dock all we are doing is replacing one not fit for capability for another not fit for capability. We get one chance for 30 years, so let's do it properly.

 

[recce.k1]

The RAN Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet intention is to acquire 11 patrol frigates with the following being short listed:

• German MEKO A-200 (another source).
• Japanese Mogami 30FFM (another source).
• South Korean Daegu class.
  • FFX Batch II
  • Batch III
• Spanish Navantia ALFA300

(Quote snipped to save space). Great analysis as always, it's good to hear what forum members are thinking and why.

Also, speaking generally, I think though NZ needs to factor in some of the following.

1. That Australia is seeking its own sovereign capabilities and solutions. NZ will likely not be a major factor (but if consultation does result in commonality of vessels then that is a bonus for both nations). But this is not the ANZAC Frigate project of the 1980's/90's in which former Aust. PM Kim Beazley expended significant political capital and effort bringing NZ Govt into the programme. I suspect this time around talks will be held between officials from both countries to see if there is common ground but if not Australia will move ahead with its own needs. Note that this is in no way criticism of Australia, instead it is the reality of their (strategic) situation and perfectly understandable. And in the same vein if NZ decides to choose a different ANZAC Frigate replacement capability for its reasons then that too is their prerogative.

2. NZ needs to factor in whether its ANZAC Frigate replacements are to be a global deployment capabiity (as in Indo-Pacific or wider eg Middle East or wider still etc) or a regional deployment capability (eg Asia-Pacific or Pacific only). If the former then NZ may need something more capable (with sufficent margin to upgrade and add weight over the life of the vessel) that the initial Australian Tier 2 exemplers (eg be that an evolved vessel or something else altogether). If the latter then NZ then possibly the Australian Tier 2's may be sufficient.

3. In an ideal world, in which the NZ Govt's defence review factors in the changing threat environment requires greater defence expenditure over the next 10 or so years then perhaps a mix of vessels may be the ideal. Eg some Tier 1's such as Type 26* (or more likely Tier 1.5's eg AH140) and Tier 2's as per the Australian Tier 2 programme (or something equivalent but different eg potentially the AH120 or MEKO A-100 that you raise).

*The recent cost of the RN Type 26 Batch II was £840M each (NZ$1.74b each) meaning two vessels would fit within the NZ$4b budget you mention Interestingly an article in one of the RNZN Journals obliquely hinted at total project costs of NZ$8b or $9b IIRC (but I suspect that was the ideal for 2 or 3 vessels from the Australian Hunter programme and not necessarly the Govt approved funding i.e. the NZ$4b you refer to)?

*OTOH NZ could look at acquiring 3 of the T26 Hunters that are now being axed, keeping the production line tempo going at the original or perhaps a quicker rate than is now being recomended by the Aust. Govt by slowing it down. Clearly the synergies with NZ having the same vessels as Australia would be hugely beneficial. However the drawbacks for NZ are costs (what would they be - i.e. not the total project costs that are in the public domain of approx A$5b/vessel), future/weight margin risk due to the "Australianisation" modifications and finally the delivery timelines suggest they may not be available until the 2040's which is some ten years after the RNZN ANZAC's are due to be retired. So perhaps very unlikely for a number of reasons but this is where a potential RN Type 26 option could be less risky and deliverable within the mid-2030's timeframes?

Of course these options may be totally unrealistic anyway and expectations may need to be dialed back to Tier 2 and/or Tier 1.5 only.

But I will say two things. Firstly a sensible NZ Govt, looking to expend finances in the years ahead (plus recruiting), not immediately (and factoring in NZ's still relatively low debt ratio) could choose to increase the budget for the Naval combat force (eg $6-8b) to protect NZ's wider maritime interests. Secondly NZ has the smallest Navy fleet in the Asia-Pacific. Granted geography and geo-politics drives many of the other Asia Pacific navies to have larger fleets but NZ is meant to be a first world national and member of FVEY. Previous history in WW2 and Postwar saw a larger NZ Navy that has been allowed to atrophy. We need to be striving higher than the post-cold war/peace dividend thinking that has driven NZ defence policy and planning for the last 30 years.

 

[recce.k1]

Before the first Anzac frigate (Te Kaha? – second ship of RAN/RNZN Anzac Class) retires eight EXLS VLS should be fitted to Aotearoa and the Sea Ceptor missiles transferred to Aotearoa. EXLS is a standalone three cell VLS that doesn’t penetrate the deck and basically can be hung anywhere on the ship. EXLS should not be confused with the Host Extensible Launch System (ExLS), which is a plug in system that slots in both MK-41 VLS and MK-57 VLS cells. The radar and (Electro Optical Tracking System (EOTS) system from Te Kaha could then be transferred to Aotearoa upon Te Kaha’s decommissioning. This is to give Aotearoa its own air defence (AD) capability. Its Anti Aircraft Artillery (AAA) gun armament should also be substantially increased. Experience from the Russo Ukraine War, and the current Houthi attacks against shipping in the Red Sea, illustrates the necessity of the likes of 30mm auto cannon with air burst ammunition, and Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities being the best defence against Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Uncrewed Surface Vessels (USV). It isn’t very cost effective to use a $5 million missile to shoot down a $1,000 UAV or USV.

Yes hopefully the RNZN has followed its RAN counterpart by conducting a gap assessment of the capabilities of its vessels (eg Frigates & AOR) against the weapons and drones and other systems such as used by the Houties and a number of other countries that pose a potential threat. If so perhaps the AOR could be "enhanced" sooner rather than wait until Te Kaha is retired in another 10 years?

Another thing, the Phalanx CIWS seems to get a lot of stick from DT posters in the CIWS thread, but as the recent USS Carney incident showed the Phalanx with its independent search and tracking radar subsystems is that vital last line of defence system for the protection of a vessel. Particularly if the vessel's primary sensors and systems failed to detect an incoming threat (or have been disabled/offline/damaged etc). The other advantage of Phalanx is that it can be reloaded at sea, unlike missile systems etc.

Accordingly it would be interesting to know if a second CIWS could be fitted to the ANZAC's to provide 360 coverage (like the Greek navy's MEKO 200 equivalents). Similarly for AOR Aotearoa as it is also a deployable asset, not just one Phalanx fore but perhaps an additional two on the superstructure covering port/starboard and aft. Granted additional weapons specialists would be required but presumably this already has been factored in during the design process. Perhaps also consideration could be given to replacing sealift vessel Canterbury's MSI DS25 25mm stabilised gun system with Phalanx? After all the RN/RAN see fit to install them on their Bay-class dock landing ships.

Another calibre finding favor with the RN is the Bofors 40mm Mk4. Perhaps that could be another option instead of 30mm in terms of standardisation with a close ally? In terms of current RNZN vessels perhaps the OPV's and Canterbury could be suitable (instead of CIWS)?

Otherwise for the future fleet replacements (assuming there are allowances for space/weight).

 

[Redlands18]

No because you are introducing multiple new types into the fleet instead of consolidating hull types. Replace the IPV / OPV fleet with a single class of corvettes that have significant commonality with the frigates i.e., a mini me.

The RAN Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet intention is to acquire 11 patrol frigates with the following being short listed:

• German MEKO A-200 (another source).
• Japanese Mogami 30FFM (another source).
• South Korean Daegu class.
  • FFX Batch II
  • Batch III
• Spanish Navantia ALFA3000

Of these four types, I think that the outstanding one is the MEKO A-200 Class, followed by the Mogami Class. Both are currently in service with other navies. The Daegu FFX Batch II is also in service with another navy, but at present the Batch III is a paper design. IMHO the Navantia ALFA 3000 is a paper design, too small for Indo-Pacific oceans, and the design appears cramped with not a lot of room for future upgrades. It might work for European and Mediterranean navies who don't venture far from home, but one look at a map of the Pacific Ocean illustrates the distances involved. The fact that it isn’t in service with any navy significantly increases the risk. Besides Navantia didn’t come through the Hobart DDG build with flying colours; it left a lot to be desired.

Incheon-class frigate - Wikipedia
With the Korean Frigates, originally known as FFX.
Batch 1 is the Incheon class
Batch 2 is the Daegu class
Batch 3 is the Chungnam class with first ship launched in Apr 2023
Batch 4 is the paper design
South Korea Green Lights FFX Batch IV Frigate Program for ROK Navy - Naval News
Yet another design with an inverted bow. They may also be the replacements for the first Gen ROK Destroyers.

 

[jbc388]

I have been following the disscussion with interest reguarding what maybe purchased for the NZDF, but with this current National/Act/NZ first government and their budget cuts and allergic to spending I can't see much of an increase to the overall budget for the NZDF, when every single Government Department needs increases! eg Police, Corrections etc,etc.
And there was the minister on one of the morning TV shows bragging about be fugral with money, I didn't see the show just the short video clip on the news!

I would love the NZDF to have more ships/aircraft/armoured arty/more manpower,anti drone/air,defence etc,etc I feel this is just not going to occur with this current crop of cabinet ministers that have deep pockets and short arms! and a wallet covered in gorse!!
They are sounding big on talking just to keep Aust off their back!! and no actual action!!

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Government gets another warning from NZDF

NZDF warns government again it is in dire state

 

[RegR]

Government gets another warning from NZDF

NZDF warns government again it is in dire state

And this is why these ideas of new/improved/more equipment and capability are pipedreams at best, for the foreseeable future at least.

We need to sort the horse out first before even contemplating the cart but if it makes anyone feel better this is not currently a NZ specific issue, it just has a more pronounced and obviously visible effect due to our smaller size to begin with.

 

[Rob c]

And this is why these ideas of new/improved/more equipment and capability are pipedreams at best, for the foreseeable future at least.

We need to sort the horse out first before even contemplating the cart but if it makes anyone feel better this is not currently a NZ specific issue, it just has a more pronounced and obviously visible effect due to our smaller size to begin with.

The reality is that the NZDF has been under funded for 35 years and the change to running it like a business and the erosion of personal terms of employment have driven destroyed the ability of the NZDF to function even in a peace time role, it would struggle to defend Stewart Island.
The reality is that Defence is NOT a business, it is a SERVICE that is meant to be able to protect our freedom and sovereignty and things like the capital charge and other practices have destroyed any pretense of it being able to defend anything. In the 1980's defence averaged 2.5% GDP in it's budget, in the last 30 years the budget has been consistently at least 1% GDP less than this and most of the time significantly more than this, up to 1,5 less. this means that over this period of time and at todays values NZDF has been deprived of at least $100B.
To be blunt our pollies are putting their welfare ahead of our countries long term freedom and sovereignty and the future of our children's and grandchildren's freedom. We don't just need little bits done. Even with a minimum of 2% GDP plus an additional large boost of capital over and above what is already allocated and no capital charge, I would estimate that it would take up to 20 years to restore a defence function as of the late 1980's.

 

[Hawkeye69]

That’s a hard read and what a sad state of affairs. I waited 3 hours 20 minutes on phone to talk to a human at ACC and the Govt expect them to cut more staff, next time it will be a 6 hour wait, but people will get their $12 a week tax cut, but wait there’s more your local council will be putting your rates up 10-15% per year each year for the next 30 years so start saving that $12 in tax cuts.

 

[CJohn]

Not sure if this has been mentioned here before.

NZDF has successfully launched an experimental satellite payload into orbit on a US research satellite which was launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket mission from Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia USA.

NZDF tests space hardware after successful satellite launch

The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) has successfully launched an experimental satellite payload into orbit on a United States satellite, which will allow defence scientists to conduct space communications research.

www.nzdf.mil.nz

 

[recce.k1]

NZDF's attrition rate is reducing & is now 10.6% (roughly 2015 levels).

But DefMin acknowledges personnel numbers are still not enough.

Expect the May Budget to continue with initiatives to retain and re-enlist experienced personnel.

NZ Defence Forces turning tide on attrition woes

After years of pandemic-related attrition, New Zealand's military is growing again, giving leaders hope of rebuilding their decimated defence forces.

Thousands of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel - across the three services of army, navy and air force, and also civilian employees - have left in recent years, chasing higher pay and better opportunities.

In the two years to January, 3228 people exited the NZDF, which had an average headcount of 11,824 at the end of 2023.

That headcount is roughly equivalent to 2015 levels.

The navy suffered the highest attrition, with 17 per cent leaving in the year to January 2023, just ahead of the army, with 16.9 per cent.
Attrition - described by former defence minister Andrew Little as "a big hollowing out" - has hurt the military's deployment capacity.

An key example of this is that four of the Kiwi navy's nine-strong fleet unable to to be staffed.

"It's a real concern that they're not able to be used," Defence Minister Judith Collins told AAP earlier this year.

"When I have questioned Defence about this, it's been attrition basically.

"What we've got to do in Defence is to get that attrition rate down, the morale up and then the mojo back on steroids."

Five months into the job, Ms Collins is seeing progress.

Figures provided to AAP show attrition nearing long-term averages and this year, and for the first time since COVID-19, growth in overall defence numbers.

The total attrition rate was at 15.5 per cent in the year to January 2023, but sits now at 10.6 per cent - just above the decade-long average of 10 per cent.

That has allowed the NZDF to replace the staff it is losing, with headcount up marginally to 11,867 at the end of February.
"But this is not enough," Ms Collins told AAP.

"The NZDF is completely dependent on suitably qualified and experienced personnel to deliver for New Zealand, so it is critical that we continue to work to build back our defence force and support our personnel.

"This is an absolute priority for me as minister of defence."

New Zealand is far from the only country suffering from high attrition rates in its military, with many developed nations including the UK, Australia and Canada all battling to keep trained servicemen and women in uniform.

The overall numbers also hide particularly shortfalls - particularly those with particular technical skills.

Departure of musicians and writers were also running at double the average attrition rates.

Documents released under the Official Information Act showed the key reasons behind departures were opportunities elsewhere and poor remuneration.

The last Labour government moved to bridge the gap between what NZDF personnel were paid and "their market rates" by lifting annual wages for many roles by up to $NZ15,000 ($A13,800).

NZ DEFENCE ATTRITION RATES
Year to January 2023 - Overall: 15.5 per cent
Navy 17 per cent, Army 16.9 per cent, Air Force 11.9 per cent, Civilian 15.2 per cent

Year to January 2024 - Overall: 11.4 per cent
Navy 12.5 per cent, Army 11.2 per cent, Air Force 10 per cent, Civilian 12 per cent

Source:

 

[Rob c]

NZDF's attrition rate is reducing & is now 10.6% (roughly 2015 levels).

But DefMin acknowledges personnel numbers are still not enough.

Expect the May Budget to continue with initiatives to retain and re-enlist experienced personnel.



Source:

But the problem is the loss of the experienced staff and numbers do not tell the whole story. This has been an ongoing problem for a long time and was recognized back in a Defence white paper around 2011, with action being called for then. So what did the Key government do, Instead of doing what the white paper called for, which was an increase of the salaries of the personnel in the 8 to 12 year bracket, they reduced the terms and conditions for every one, which over the years has caused the problem to worsen from then on. For reference, in the 1980s the attrition rate was around the 6% to 7% mark and pay was based on giving the same as outside rates, PLUSS a service allowance to make up for lack of overtime payments, disciplinary requirements, being posted to were ever etc. This was all thrown out to save money and the result has been a disaster. Just keeping people is not the answer, you have to retain the right people and even 10.6 is still way to high.

 

[Teal]

Morning All, to quote a generalised average of 10% is meaningless, I feel it’s the individual service rates we should be looking at and then , maybe specific trades too. Around 17% (long-term) for the Navy is horrific and we are seeing the effects daily. The number of “unicorns” (single pers causing points of failure) we have are growing , across many trades , including the traditional ones never discussed. Sadly I feel, things are still going backwards and we have not arrested attrition.
Pay and conditions may help, but the cost of living on the North shore and being able to get to work are real issues impacting many.

 

[recce.k1]

Pay and conditions may help, but the cost of living on the North shore and being able to get to work are real issues impacting many.

Well said (including the part I didn't quote) ... on the topic of defence housing (and personnel coping with living costs especially Navy due to the reduction of accommodation at DNB etc), looks like the new Govt is to invest in the PPP model with Linton being the trial case. Newsroom quotes Melbourne-based PPP operator Plenary Group (provider of ADF accommodation) as an example (and maybe in partnership with other local groupings)? I guess this also means for NZG less larger amounts of upfront capital funding required (which can be then directed into other priority areas) but more on-going (and sustainable) operational funding eg for leases etc, which seems to have some advantages.

However any thoughts on this Gentlemen, both positive and negative?

It does looks like the Govt is having a go (whether we agree with their direction or not) on addressing underlying infrastructural issues at a quicker pace than previous administrations.

New army barracks to spearhead move to public-private partnerships

Replacing decaying Linton Military Camp accommodation is to be first in the new government's flagship commitment to new infrastructure financing models

newsroom.co.nz

 

[Gracie1234]

I will premise my opinion here as I believe that economic strength is a key capability that is required to enable a country to defend its way of life.
I am interested in what people believe NZ can add to AUKUS Pillar 2. From this interview, it looks like the Prime Minister has received a lot of support for us to up our capability to support the regional order from his recent trip to SE Asia. He states SE Asia is our future, I presume he sees it as a business opportunity as this region is still growing while China has potentially peaked due to population decline.

"What we've done here I think is quite smart": PM defends $41m spend in Asia

Christopher Luxon is defending spending millions on clean energy in Asia while cutting costs and Government jobs in New Zealand. The Government has commit

www.newstalkzb.co.nz

AUKUS PIllar 2 has been spoken to covering these areas which I think we are able to contribute to ,cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies. I do not know enough about hypersonics, but that seems a little 'aggressive' while the others are an easier political sell.
I see real opportunities for NZ to boost our space capability, currently a $2B business with a huge capacity to increase. Launching rockets is not the full story but also designing and building satellites.
We have access to a vast amount of renewable energy, with a need to double our capacity. With the quality of connectivity, there are no barriers to innovating, building and supporting cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, and quantum technologies.
A real plus for the country is that these would also lead to real business opportunities and in my view help lift our countries productivity as these are dual-use technologies. This would enable us to move towards what Ireland has managed to achieve.
From a risk mitigation point of view I believe the country will be seeking safety in numbers from Chinese backlash as Japan, Canada and us will all be part fo the programme of work.

 

[Rob c]

I believe that the biggest problem both the county and the government has to our moving forward both with our economy and defence is our complete abhorrence to both mistakes and risk. If anyone makes a mistake, the press are all over it. Old saying, show me the man who never makes mistakes and I will show you the man who never makes anything. If anyone in government takes a risk Treasury is all over it. Failure to take calculated risks means a failure to move forward and opportunities lost. That has been our problem for the last 40 years.
As for our PM's pronouncements on defence I am at this stage a sceptic that any thing significant is going to happen any time soon. (I would love to be proved wrong on this.)
But the cutting of the already stretched defence budget like every other department does not bode well.

 

[recce.k1]

I will premise my opinion here as I believe that economic strength is a key capability that is required to enable a country to defend its way of life.
I am interested in what people believe NZ can add to AUKUS Pillar 2. From this interview, it looks like the Prime Minister has received a lot of support for us to up our capability to support the regional order from his recent trip to SE Asia. He states SE Asia is our future, I presume he sees it as a business opportunity as this region is still growing while China has potentially peaked due to population decline.

"What we've done here I think is quite smart": PM defends $41m spend in Asia

Christopher Luxon is defending spending millions on clean energy in Asia while cutting costs and Government jobs in New Zealand. The Government has commit

www.newstalkzb.co.nz

AUKUS PIllar 2 has been spoken to covering these areas which I think we are able to contribute to ,cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies. I do not know enough about hypersonics, but that seems a little 'aggressive' while the others are an easier political sell.
I see real opportunities for NZ to boost our space capability, currently a $2B business with a huge capacity to increase. Launching rockets is not the full story but also designing and building satellites.
We have access to a vast amount of renewable energy, with a need to double our capacity. With the quality of connectivity, there are no barriers to innovating, building and supporting cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, and quantum technologies.
A real plus for the country is that these would also lead to real business opportunities and in my view help lift our countries productivity as these are dual-use technologies. This would enable us to move towards what Ireland has managed to achieve.
From a risk mitigation point of view I believe the country will be seeking safety in numbers from Chinese backlash as Japan, Canada and us will all be part fo the programme of work.

Whilst it isn't a given that NZ will participate (as this is up to the main AUKUS partners) I think you raise some interesting points and opportunities. Certainly the Defence Minister has been raising the space technology aspects (and I suspect this will be an area the Govt will put additional funding into whether or not there are wider P2 implications) but it won't be the only one as you outline.

On the issue of hypersonics, P2 appears to be emphasising research and development. The other R&D aspect is counter-hypersonics, which in this day and age (and moving forward) I think it would be naive of any NZ Govt to ignore this type of threat and how to counter it. So perhaps, why not have NZ participate and colloborate in this R&D area? Which surely would have linkages with existing NZ space technology/development (which also links in perfectly with your observations on business opportunities and lifting productivity as well as advancing NZ's technological industry, education and knowledge base).

For an example of Australia's joint R&D efforts in the area of hypersonics:

US, Australia eye joint hypersonics experiments in 2024

The countries have been deepening their partnership on hypersonics, according to Heidi Shyu, the Pentagon's chief technology officer.

www.c4isrnet.com

Australian Govt (earlier) outline of P2 Advanced Capabilities (and P1 in general):

https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/AUKUS-factsheet.pdf

Dr Reuben Steff counters the anti-AUKUS P2 talking points:

For New Zealand, the Benefits of Joining AUKUS Pillar II Outweigh the Costs

Although joining Pillar II could complicate aspects of New Zealand’s diplomacy, the fear of significant consequences seems overblown.

thediplomat.com