NZDF General discussion thread

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
....The eating of the pudding will be when funds are allocated and orders placed for real platforms and the weapons to go on/in them.
Not even then I'm afraid...think 'Project Protector' for RNZN...7 ships of varying quality...within little more than a decade most IPVs were mothballed due primarily to manning (funding) issues and by 2025 we have only 2 of these 7 ships in service with a 3rd coming back on stream as a poor quality replacement for a sunk vessel!
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
So with the DefMin calling for more investment (can't recall previous DefMin's doing the same for many a decade now?), presumably she is reflecting Govt thinking (ditto with their support Party's defence spokesman doing so last week and now their Party leader reaffirming that) it is signalling changes are in the making (well at least there will be cross-party support if that happens).

The other interesting signal is the mention of the need to have greater"lethality". I think rather than going down the path of "talk is cheap" let's have a discussion of what this could mean. There are many commentators here with knowledge of the particular Services and how they are organised, so what could be some realistic options?

My thoughts are greater investment will be a longer (or medium-longer) term strategy so in the mean time (short to medium term) investment could mean growing personnel numbers (recruitment, re-enlistment etc), as well as infrastructure and support etc, therefore building upon existing capabilities, either by adding mass and/or incremental upgrades to kit. This would provide some "concurrency" (that Defence talks about needing) to provide better presence now that the NZG is focusing on the likes of South Korea, Japan, Philippines etc, in addition to traditional linkages with Australia, Singapore, US efforts in the Gulf/Indo-Pacific and of course our South Pacific and Southern Ocean/continent commitments etc.

So if the adage is along the lines of one fights with what they already have then presumably that means equipping existing capabilities "better", seeking new replacement capabilities (which is where the longer term investments come into the picture) and hopefully some new capabilities (or ahem, at least restored capabilities).

Realistically NZ cannot afford to have the breadth that our Trans-Tasman neighbours have, but at the very least it can "plug in" where deemed practical (and usually it is planned betwen both countries to do so) and have enough mass to provide at least some resilience when the pressure comes on.

The other area where NZ could assist with in the wider allied picture is covering the flank so-to-speak, as well, (eg South Pacific and Southern Ocean) so that ADF resources can be primarily tasked with Indo-Pac operations without having to divert (or minimise the need to do so) precious capabilities that would be better employed elsewhere. In this scenario it could mean improved ISR capabilities in the maritime/space/air domain with the ability to call upon local combat equipped resources (even if "second tier") if and when required (noting that planning will be an allied colaborative effort anyway).

Anyway these are some random thoughts from myself as a random commentator (who has no particular insight into anything)!

However I will end this with the words from the Chief of Defence Force at last December's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee meeting.

The DCP will—when decisions are made about that and that’s released, we’ll be able to share more of that with you. I think part of it, though, is to make sure we have a recruiting system, a mobilisation system, a reserve system where we can quickly expand our numbers when required, as we did during previous major conflicts that New Zealand’s been involved in. It’s not just about starting that growth pattern now but making sure that we can accelerate that when and if required.
My conclusion is Defence and Government are taking things really seriously, to expand (mind you one wouldn't think so on forums of course).

But which pathways will be made public (and funded) in the DCP? And what other pathways won't be made public but are there sitting quietly ready to go if the international situation requires it?
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The positive part of the def min statement was her saying that NZ needs to be able to defend ourselves. However the money required to undo all the damage done by the both the Labour and National governments will take a massive amount of money, which I don't see being available any time soon.
The damage was in broad terms was that Labour destroyed our ability to defend ourselves and National destroyed our ability to retain our defence personal by their commercialization of defence personal terms of employment.
To put this right even before we start on regional defence would require a huge increase in the budget and to go the hole way I would think would mean a budget in the region of 2.5% to 3.0% GDP. I doubt that this government would be willing to go there.
 

Hawkeye69

Member
The Leader of ACT also wants to privatise Health NZ and the education system, a move that alone would net the Govt $590 billion from Health NZ assests alone and a move that would be another highly unpopular with the vast majority of kiwis.
 

Gracie1234

Well-Known Member
It looks like the public are starting to get educated on why additional funds are required. Here is the interview with the DefMin mentioned earlier.
Military boost needed amid escalating regional tensions - Collins. This interview links with the overall gov strategy to build wealth as our mineral wealth is specifically mentioned as we are very resource rich, we just have not used it yet. Mentioned the breadth of the Realm of NZ from the Pacific to Antarctica.

I would expect a min 2% GDP investment, this is more important now that President Trump is back. Defence and Trade are now firmly linked, this has not been the case for the last 30 years. I think it is quite clear that if we are not able to protect our Realm then we will lose it. I remember a comment from the Finance Minister as she was sitting next to the Polish Minister. 'If you think funding defence in peace is expensive compare that to having to fight a war'. 2% GDP is a small investment compared to 40% GDP for Ukraine.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I would expect a min 2% GDP investment, this is more important now that President Trump is back. Defence and Trade are now firmly linked, this has not been the case for the last 30 years. I think it is quite clear that if we are not able to protect our Realm then we will lose it. I remember a comment from the Finance Minister as she was sitting next to the Polish Minister. 'If you think funding defence in peace is expensive compare that to having to fight a war'. 2% GDP is a small investment compared to 40% GDP for Ukraine.
My personal view is that more than 2% gdp is required, 2% will paper over some of the larger cracks that have formed in he last 30+ years of under funding, but to get a defence force that can defend NZ or deter aggression against us will take more. Just to get good retention of knowledgeable experienced staff is a long way off then there is the need to rebuild capabilities lost during this period is going to take a lot of time and money. This needs to be done before start we can start on getting ready for the requirements for modern weapons and battle tactics
 

jbc388

Member
My personal view is that more than 2% gdp is required, 2% will paper over some of the larger cracks that have formed in he last 30+ years of under funding, but to get a defence force that can defend NZ or deter aggression against us will take more. Just to get good retention of knowledgeable experienced staff is a long way off then there is the need to rebuild capabilities lost during this period is going to take a lot of time and money. This needs to be done before start we can start on getting ready for the requirements for modern weapons and battle tactics
Yes nicely said and New Zealand is so behind in modern weapons and battle tactics it's not funny!! no air defence at all, drone defence, very limited anti armour weapons, no long reange arty, limited logistics ships,vehicles, only 2 surface combatant ships, lack of helo's, not enough transport aircraft,training aircraft the list goes on and on!!
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Yes nicely said and New Zealand is so behind in modern weapons and battle tactics it's not funny!! no air defence at all, drone defence, very limited anti armour weapons, no long reange arty, limited logistics ships,vehicles, only 2 surface combatant ships, lack of helo's, not enough transport aircraft,training aircraft the list goes on and on!!
Sure but we have been investing and catching up in the background with for example some of the kinda less glamorous (i.e. public/perception wise) interoperable technologies such as C4 network enabled army, moving into the C5ISR realm, Army already using battle management software and when buying new (replacement) land vehicle types they already have or (for new acquisitions in motion) will have compliant communications systems etc. Granted other nations are already there with these technologies but remember gaining access to such systems wasn't easy in the not too distant past. (Just ask "CD" if he is around just what they were using in East Timor for comparison)! The ANZAC frigates are miles ahead of what they were originally.

But to your point I think we'll see at least some meaningful improvements so keep the faith, brother.

Sure not necessarily all and not necessarily the greatest (compared to many others) but we Kiwi's do not moan and complain, we get on and do the best we can and get the most out of what we are given, no matter what it is!

We've done it before and we can do it again ...

 

jbc388

Member
Sure but we have been investing and catching up in the background with for example some of the kinda less glamorous (i.e. public/perception wise) interoperable technologies such as C4 network enabled army, moving into the C5ISR realm, Army already using battle management software and when buying new (replacement) land vehicle types they already have or (for new acquisitions in motion) will have compliant communications systems etc. Granted other nations are already there with these technologies but remember gaining access to such systems wasn't easy in the not too distant past. (Just ask "CD" if he is around just what they were using in East Timor for comparison)! The ANZAC frigates are miles ahead of what they were originally.

But to your point I think we'll see at least some meaningful improvements so keep the faith, brother.

Sure not necessarily all and not necessarily the greatest (compared to many others) but we Kiwi's do not moan and complain, we get on and do the best we can and get the most out of what we are given, no matter what it is!

We've done it before and we can do it again ...

Yes I know what was used in ET but I am hoping some real progress is going to happen in the not too distant future!!
In the modern battlefield NZ forces are lacking in just about everything but in saying that they now have much better personal issued gear so that is one good thing!!
 

CJohn

Active Member
The NZDF has launched it's second space payload for Defence Science and Technology on a Space X Falcon 9 from Vandenberg Space Force Base California.
The payload is to further test communication pathways that will help reduce communications delays in space operations and to inform NZ defence space policy considerations and potential future research work.

 

Hawkeye69

Member
I would love to know what exactly is meant by ‘leathality’.

During the election campaign Chris Penk ruled out returning to an air combat force so unless they have changed their minds thats off the table.

When it comes to the crunch I cannot see this Government putting the investment required to bring the NZDF up to the standard talked about.

In saying this what I would hope they are brave enough to do is add an extra 2x P-8A and ensure they are armed to do the job, an extra 1x C-130J, and to buy MHR-60R Seahawks to replace the Seasprite and to finally get the SOPV.

That would be a good starter, we need to remember we are struggling to man current assets and the armed forces Worldwide are not the attractive career they once were.
 
Top