NZDF General discussion thread

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Yeah I've heard stories about the AUG's were using, things like junk scopes & mags, melting parts from auto fire etc. The M16A2/A4 would be a good option, the Army were trained with the M16A1 prior to the AUG replacing them so that seems like the way to go. About the Leopards, any good variants that are cheap an effective could be an option. QAMR could operate these along side recon/comms variants of the LAV with the infantry support LAVs going to 1 RNZIR & 2/1 RNZIR.

The F88 has been in service with the ADF for a decade and they all seem to love it. lite, relyable, accurate, inbuilt optics, exchangeable barrels. From everything i've heard its a better rifle than the M16A2. There was some initial problems with stopages i think but i've never heard of anything melting from auto fire.

RE MBT's their logistical footprint is just too big to justify the purchase, in wither a defenceive role or an expeditionary role.

 

[funtz]

Not trying to be an Ahole, but really

http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical...-changing-popn/population-size-and-growth.htm

Making more babies would be a nice start.

By the way, they have a very beautiful country and pride themselves in keeping it so.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

population is not the determaning factor in military power.

 

[swerve]

population is not the determaning factor in military power.

No, but it limits it.

 

[barra]

Steyr parts melting when used in full auto? I think someone is pulling your leg Bushwacker. The main problem the ADF has experienced with the Steyr has been with UD's and that has mainly been due to weapon handling issues. As Ozzy Blizzard has stated it is a reliable, acurate and easy to maintain weapon.

As to what New Zealand can do to become a regional power, I could state the obvious but I won't. Obviously the current Labour government does not have the political will to increase defence spending to a level were New Zealand could make an effective contribution to wider regional security. Is the NZ economy strong enough to lift spending on defence? Would other areas like Health, Education and Welfare have to be cut to do so? Is it just a lack of will or a genuine inability to increase spending? I am not full bottle on the NZ economy but I do understand it doesn't have the natural resources to export like Australia does.

I have followed this thread for quite some time and I am impressed with the length and passion of the debate. It is good to see there are plenty of kiwis who still care about their countries security. (I do realise I am preaching to the converted though!!)

Hooroo

 

[old faithful]

RE- the styer parts melting....maybe confused with cook offs? This was a problem that i have witnessed early in the induction of the riflle. After plenty of full auto fire,re-loaded styers were so hot that cook offs did occur. I have bought this up before, and had plenty of people ridicule me, but i can assure you that it was a problem,if its not happening now,then its been addresseed. The trigger mech was also an early problem that has been fixed as has the sighting system,that was also prone to fogging and also "twisting" internally.(This was found after numerous parachute deployed diggs couldnt hit the side of a barn with it,and it needed constant zero-ing)
UD,s are still a problem,i blame the arctic trigger guard and bar safty catch, but that is a training issue. I believe that the styer NOW is a much better weopon than the early production run.

The KIWI,s are really well trained digs,another BN of RNZIR would be a huge boost to them,allowing expansion of the other corps and give the SAS another unit to recruit from(expansion?)
Another frigate would put a strain on their navy,s numbers, but really is needed.
The P3k,s upgrade to include harpoon,more NH90,s and also maybe another 2-3 Seasprites would really allow NZ to deploy a bigger force whilst maintaining national security, and be a regional power (more so than it already is.)

 

[MrConservative]

A glance at the figures below reveal the manpower problems within the NZ Army. Both the RNZIR Battalions are already a Rifle Company under strength. The levels of funded base establishment figures had already dropped considerably in the previous 5 year period. Earlier in the decade 2 Land Force Groups total establishment was 2400 personnel and 3 Land Force Groups was 1140 personnel. For instance 5 years ago 1/1 RNZIR had a base establishment of 875 and 2/1 RNZIR around 785 personnel.


2 Land Force Group (Regular Army Units)
Establishment Strength
2005/6
16 Field Regiment 301
1/1 RNZIR 633
2 Engineer Regiment 382
2 Field Hospital 123
Headquarters 2 LFG 45
2 Logistics Battalion 502
2 Signals Squadron 164
Total 2,145

Current Strength
2005/6
16 Field Regiment 214
1/1 RNZIR 506
2 Engineer Regiment 264
2 Field Hospital 61
Headquarters 2 LFG 33
2 Logistics Battalion 359
2 Signals Squadron 100
Total 1,538

3 Land Force Group (Regular Army Units)

Established Strength
2005/6
2/1 RNZIR 621
Headquarters 3 LFG 26
3 Logistics Battalion 200
3 Regional Training Unit 0
3 Signals Squadron 60
Total 905

Average Strength
2005/6
2/1 RNZIR 469
Headquarters 3 LFG 23
3 Logistics Battalion 156
3 Regional Training Unit 0
3 Signals Squadron 49
Total 696

Note: QAMR were still part of the Army Training Group establishment when these figures were collated and not included.

These figures show why a third regular Battalion for RNZIR is very difficult. In real terms it would require the present Army to grow from the 4500 regulars at present (which is a 1000 under the effective establishment) to around 7000 personnel. The best we can do over the next three to five years is to return the Land Force Groups to full establishment status. 3 Land Force Group has really been hammered over the last decade and has been stripped greatly in terms of support units due to cost cutting. Another SAS Squadron on present selection and graduation rates is also very difficult to achieve let alone maintain the current numbers and operational integrity of 1 NZSAS Group. So with the numbers to achieve a 3rd battalion not realistically possible in the short term and the difficulty in expanding the size of the SAS, the solution in my mind is bringing back the Rangers Company as a stand alone entity and reformulating the role and structure of the TF to support the two existing Land Force Groups. Manpower problems also exist in the Navy as we know. Currently with around 1900 personnel it should be at the 2200 to 2400 level. A lot to do with lack of sea time opportunities over the last few years as many here have alluded to. Placing an Anzac into semi reserve is one of the Governments possible solutions as its priority is to staff the Project Protector Fleet. Will that help Naval recruitment? No it wont.

At present the RNZNVR has an active establishment of under 300. Like the TF we need to restructure and re-role this organisation so that they can play a more fuller role in the support and operations of the NZDF. I have always thought of ways to entice the involvment and build up of our low Defence Reserve Numbers when taking into consideration the time, effort and money they give up. Reserve Forces have fallen from around 7700 in the 1980s to around 2300 today. One of the ideas I have been thinking of to rectify this is a volunteer defence service tax rebate scheme. i.e if a member of the volunteer reserve forces fufills his or her obligations over each 12 month period they would be eligible for a tax holiday on the first $10000 of income tax.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

One of the ideas I have been thinking of to rectify this is a volunteer defence service tax rebate scheme. i.e if a member of the volunteer reserve forces fufills his or her obligations over each 12 month period they would be eligible for a tax holiday on the first $10000 of income tax.

Given the average level of income in NZ that is a very good Idea and I would be happy to see soemthing similar for the regulars. The big question is, how does one convince politicians to accept this, letalone implement it? There has for the last 20 odd years been the ideal of a neutral tax system that has been taken to heart by both major parties. Moreover they will jealously guard the tax base as other groups line up for their tax exemption.

 

[MrConservative]

I wouldn't entirely call the current governments tax system 'revenue' neutral Stuart. Not with surpluses heading towards a billion a month. But that is another issue for somewhere else. Good point about extending my TF tax rebate plan across to the regulars - I think the case can be made is that Defence Personnel, though Govt employees, are really in another subset when compared to your average civil servant. I suppose many of us will be putting submissions into the post 2008 Defence White Paper McCully spoke of this morning on Agenda this morning. Here on Defencetalk is a good forum for us Kiwi's to try out our policy ideas on each other over the next 15 months. With the polls the way they are heading we might have something we can contribute to in this debate. Personally the way things are going (poll wise) I might stay in NZ for good and not bugger off again next year as I had originally envisaged.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I wouldn't entirely call the current governments tax system 'revenue' neutral Stuart. Not with surpluses heading towards a billion a month. But that is another issue for somewhere else.

Sorry, I was referring to neutrality in that everyone pays without exemptions, leading to tax simplicity and, hopefully, less cost in tax collection and administration.

Good point about extending my TF tax rebate plan across to the regulars - I think the case can be made is that Defence Personnel, though Govt employees, are really in another subset when compared to your average civil servant. I suppose many of us will be putting submissions into the post 2008 Defence White Paper McCully spoke of this morning on Agenda this morning. Here on Defencetalk is a good forum for us Kiwi's to try out our policy ideas on each other over the next 15 months. With the polls the way they are heading we might have something we can contribute to in this debate. Personally the way things are going (poll wise) I might stay in NZ for good and not bugger off again next year as I had originally envisaged.

One thig I got from that interview was, as was said, "Dont scare the Horses" I wasnt overly impressed.

 

[MrConservative]

I wasn't particularly impressed either. McCully wasn't on his best form. But, it is as I expected, they the National Party, don't want to go near anything in Defence terms that potentially leaves them open to attack from Labour. Also from the media who do not have any understanding on Defence and Foreign Affairs matters. What was interesting in the interview was McCully saying that the Defence White Paper would include a wide scope including the input from our friends and neighbours and that because of the mere fact that they are having a white paper they will have to recognise that defence spending may very well need to increase and that needs to be factored in. I'm waiting to see if NZ First and Act go 'low key' on Defence or talk it up as a point of difference to both Labour and National.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Markus40]

We have thrown this argument around the forum countless times and we all agree that National didnt do its job when it came to defense. The watered down version by labour does in many ways address our immediate needs to some extent, but they have cut corners in much of what the NZDFs have required and urgently needed. However, Labour overall has addressed the Defense policy issues in a more responsible way than National did.

I dont think any of us in this forum agree that the failure of the F16 purchase is stopping the free trade issue with the US. What i believe is stopping the fta from passing is due to New Zealands overall defense contribution in the broader spectrum. The ACF is the most obvious bug bear and there is no doubt that the US is concerned over the disbandenment of the squadrons. The US tried helping the Labour government in a firesale arrangement for 30 F16s which would have kept our ACF in a capable position. Then came along the C130J option with the Australian order and we flattly refused it. It would seem to me that selling the A4s back to the US is in many ways insulting. Especially when the agreement states that the aircraft have to be kept flying in New Zealand colours.

I believe the US would look at this differently if New Zealand had even purchased a replacement, seperate to a US order. But after blooding the nose of ANZUS cancelling Nuclear ships visits, cancelling the ANZUS alliiance bar Australia, then cancelling dirt cheap options of our Air capability (The F16s)along with a good deal on the C130Js and expecting the US to accept back a 1950s built aircraft is in my opinion insulting. Its plain dumb politics to expect the US to be sanctioning the approval to a private US firm to accept our A4s flying in NZ colours in the US. Cheers.

Whenever the National party (only option for a change in NZ Govt) decides to put out a defence policy, it will be interesting to see whether they intend to make increases in NZ military spending a priority over cutting taxes.

With almost every new purchase of military equipment, National has complained about it. NZLAVIIIs, Project Protector Naval vessels, Pinzgauer Light Operational Vehicles and NH90s - all railed against by National.

I'm not sure there is a track record in the National party to improve the NZ military. They had approximately 9 years in power prior to this Labour Government (they were elected in 1990 and lost in 1999) and a) didn't add a third or fourth Anzac frigate (our most recent Anzac, Te Kaha, was commisioned in July 1997 so there was plenty of time to purchase more before the end of National's term); b) they didn't consider Anzus important enough to try to overturn the US veto (or cave into their demands - a positive for them); c) they ordered the F16s (from Cabinet decision in 1998 - 8 years into their doomed 9 year reign) but then they lost 1999 election (National's 30.5% to Labour's 38.7%) and the Labour Govt cancelled the order (making a profit in exchange rate fluctuations on the refunded deposit). Perhaps if it was so important to have an Air Combat force they might have done it within 5 years of being in power (perhaps the deal was seen to be so good that even circling the drain they decided to go ahead with it)

BTW the issue of F16s as being the determining feature of a Free Trade Agreement with the US is absurd wishful thinking. As if a few hundred million of military expenditure would appease the US farming and pharmaceutical industries. How stupid do you have to be to agree with that fantasy? If it was that easy every country would do it! Look, they're trying to think.

I was surprised that Defence played almost no part in the 2005 election. Certainly there was no milage to be gained by National continuing to complain about our defence spending. For the 4 or 5 National Party apologists on this forum, their views are in the minority in NZ and not representative of the population. They are even winging about the local airplane carrier when under their preferred Govt there would not be any bail out of Air NZ so no local airplane carrier.

Rant over. Kea kaha

 

[MrConservative]

I find it just as absurd to compare the current Labour Party with Cullen at the financial helm, to the 1980s Labour Party with Douglas. Investigator here is trying to compare the Ruth Richardson era with the Bill English era. Thats why the old "Oh look at what National didnt do in the 1990s" approach is a strawman argument.

In Investigators post there were a number of factual inaccuracies. The 3rd Frigate was blocked at the Cabinet stage. Remember, National was in a minority government and it didnt have the numbers to get it through the house. Spin it all you want, but that is the bottom line.

Also how can you then in the next breath admonishing National for not rushing into purchasing ACF aircraft in the early 1990s (just after the project Kahu had been completed) with the line that "they might have done it within the first 5 years of power"?. A project that was based on at least keeping the A4's in the game and not needing replacement until 2002 to 2007. Nice try to blame National in retrospect when they where following the standard procurement curve. It would not be too hard to trail through Hansard and Labour Party Manifesto's of the 1980s and 1990s to see what Labour were saying at the time. If you are going to attempt revisionist history Investigator dont forget to NOT avoid context.

As for National railing against purchases. The contention is not quite accurate. National complained about the numbers of LAV3 purchased NOT that they didnt needed them. Go back to the 1997 White Paper and you will clearly see their intention to replace the M113 with around 70 light armoured vehicles. The NH90 purchase raised eyebrows because of the cost blowout. There was not an issue with the actual purchase of Utility helicopters per se, but there is a valid argument for a less expensive but still capable helicopter and with greater numbers purchased. Compare the value for money the Irish Air Corp are getting with there AW139 compared to the NH90. As for the comment of the LOV's there was only support for it I gather. Project Protector Fleet is in my view underwhelming. The IPV's are fine, but the so called MRV is just a sealift ship. Nothing more nothing less.

As for the line about the FTA. The point people have made here is that defence spending isnt THE or ONLY determining factor to get a US free trade agreement, but it is part of basically a set of tests that are applied by the US to get a candidate nation at the FTA negotiating table. It is patently absurd, naive and rather parochial to think otherwise. There are a wealth of Trade and Foreign Policy articles and journals that will susinctly explain this. Only if one goes beyond the Listener, One Network News or the Herald to get their informed view of the world. Background papers on the Chile FTA make good reading. Since your such an investigator....

As for Anzus. Labour killed it. New Zealand started on its perverse orgy of Jingoism that begat Anti-Americanism following the Anzac debacle and the anti-nuclear stance. The start of the ‘Standing up to America’ era and subsequent creation of myths, icons and sacred cows that continue to this day. Its all BS but its become what labour tells us as 'iconic' like 'Rugby'. Defence spending in liberal democracies around the world retrenched. General Colin Powell oversaw the downsizing of the US military, a fact which was widely reported and subsequently that the peace dividend was politically now in play. New Zealand under a National Govt did so and the Labour Party was the biggest cheers leader for defence cuts. Ruth Richardson went too far no disagreement on that, but since in power Labour have had the audacity to criticise National for reducing defence spending or what they call ‘running down defence’ after we of course had to sort the economic mess they left the economy in 1990. A check of Hansard defence debates during the 1990s makes liars of them anyway.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[MrConservative]

Raising Pinzergauer gearbox issues is not what I call railing against the government. A legitimate issue to put the heat on a Government.

The issue with the Frigate replacement has the same rational as the ACF replacement. The HMNZS Canterbury wasn't going to retire until 2005.

We only needed 70 to 80 LAVs. We got stuck with 105 because of the shannigans of Army HQ and backdoors meetings between them and the Labour heirachy who sidestepped normal MOD procurement channels.

The 'test' is essentially the symmetry of benefits when applied to US policy. Weighing up security posture and trade. The now wider considerations application of the Helms Burton Act and the 'negative list' approach that Congress and Lobbyists apply in committee hearings. Many people know how Washington works its not exactly a big secret. So are you still under the impression that purely economic considerations are the basis of the US undertaking FTA's?

Fair enough about the Listener. I havent read it for 15 years. Probably still won't.

I dont have a problem with US Nuclear powered ships visiting New Zealand. Since the Somers Report 1992 Im fairly relaxed about it. I do have a problem with what I regard as tokenist, feel good legislation that has fustrated the New Zealand - US - Australian relationship. But the reality is that it will stay for sometime yet and rather than a fruitless return to an ANZUS relationship. I'm more interested in how we can move forward in a more positive role.

I make no apologies for have a strong pro western alliance stance and make no apologies for my jaundiced view of the Prime Minister. Im more than happy to debate Defence issues, thats what I'm here for. But the moment someone uses adjectives such as 'fantasy' or 'stupid' to critique others posts they are fair game.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

We only needed 70 to 80 LAVs. We got stuck with 105 because of the shannigans of Army HQ and backdoors meetings between them and the Labour heirachy who sidestepped normal MOD procurement channels.

The original idea was to mount both infantry battlions and that was not done, principally, I think because the asking price was to high or there was a screw up in the estimates of numbers actually required. One thing I am certain of, is that with one battalion moterised we will never deploy a battalion worth of LAV mounted infantry, we dont have the numbers for proper rotation or attrition spares to say nothing of actual battalions.

I have seen this figure of only neededing 70-80 LAV's and I dont understand it, because it offers us even less capacity than what we have.

 

[MrConservative]

If the policy was for a rotation of two infantry battalions then around 125 LAV's would of been more appropriate. We are now in the era of Company Groups for rotations or a one time six month stint with a Battalion Group. I suppose it all goes back to the position of whether NZ should of replaced the Scorpion or not. 80 LAV's and 50 tracked or possibly a proportioned mix of LAVs and something like the Bushmaster to round out the necessary numbers. Remember on a rotation deployment LAV's would likely remain on location. From the situation we are now in I'd be interested in views on a solution.

 

[recce.k1]

Yes the LAV and numbers of vehicles issue is interesting, it is a "complex" issue which basically evolved over time (mainly from the mid-late 90's until the Govt ordered the LAV's in 2001 or thereabouts). To understand what happened you need to read the "Report of the Controller and Auditor-General on Ministry of Defence: Acquisition of Light Armoured Vehicles and Light Operational Vehicles August 2001". Since I don't think we can post reports to this forum, if anyone wants a copy email me at [email protected] and I'll send it to you (along with that F16 review which includes sections of National's defence upgrade plans in the late 1990's etc).

Briefly, options, numbers and types of vehicles changed over time. Eg early plans were to upgrade the M113's (including some as Fire Support Vehicles to replace the Scorpions - rejected though), or to reduce to 69 APC's and buy 12 FSV's. Then the Army started looking at the ASLAVII option (and thus wheeled vehicles) before finally rejecting them in favour of the new generation LAVIII (83 infantry mobility and FSV's). Then there were options presented on fully motorising both battalions (151 = 127 infantry mobility vehicles plus 24 FSV's). In the end 105 LAVII's were decided on (and the experts decided that because the LVIII carried a 25mm canon, this is regarded as a FSV thus a seperate, dedicated FSV wouldn't be needed.

Quote:
"In the course of evaluating the tenders, the MoD found that the LAV III was
more expensive if manufactured without the cannon turret in place. Major reengineering would be involved to build these vehicles without the turret to
meet the tender requirements of having separate fire support and infantry
mobility vehicles. The MoD project team (in discussion with GMD) also
found that, because all the LAV III vehicles were in effect fire support
vehicles, the total requirement to equip two battalions fell from 152 vehicles to 105 vehicles. The MoD then entered into discussions with GMD to buy 105
vehicles and fully equip two battalions".

I'm not really doing the Auditor General's report justice, it was a complicated and evolving process, best to read the full report (65 pages) rather than rely on my very brief and hastily put together overview. Needless to say the AG was not impressed with the way the LAV aquisition came together.