NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

And just to set the record straight, I'm no apologist for National! My voting patterns have not been the same over my life, for various reasons. One small part of my job is to assist with political news and media analysis and I'm really starting to resent the way politicians of whatever persuasion, manipulate the message to the masses, hence if anything I'm a little cynical about politicians in general including the current crop running the show.

To give credit to the Labour Govt they have re-assesed defence to make it live within its means. They've made some good calls, bad calls and they've made some hard calls (but their reasons to disband the ACF for example, were simplistic and appealed to the public's limited understanding of the role of the ACF in NZ's wider defence obligations, and these obligations still stand albiet with a much reduced contribution from NZ).

Anyway it is good to have robust debate so keep it up. Moving on to the original intention of this topic, some of you might have seen opposition foreign affairs spokeman Murray McCully interviewed on Agenda last Sat by Guyon Espiner and then the shows host and two print journalist's. For those that didn't the interviews are at http://agendatv.co.nz/Site/agenda/Agenda_Home/default.aspx and a full transcript is at http://agendatv.co.nz/Site/agenda/transcripts/2007/Episode-25.aspx. Personally I'm no apologist for McCully but I thought he did reasonably well. Granted he would not confirm whether defence spending would rise under a change or Govt or say whether the ACF would be reinstated but his answers gave sufficient hints that the answers would depend on their proposed White Paper outcomes etc. Now I'm cynlical enough to realise that this still isn't necessarily a positive answer (and should the economy nosedive in the next couple of years then defence may not come out well) but frankly if National committs to a White Paper then it is a hell of alot better than this Govt's refusal to produce one over the last few years). I'll keep my personal thoughts on the interview subjects to myself for today, I'd be interested in what other people think once they've seen the interview. Good chance to get back on topic and discuss the direction or options for the NZDF under a change of Govt.

 

[recce.k1]

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.

A solution is required. I can't see it at present.

We have 1 Batt fully motorised, who haven't been called upon to deploy with the LAVIII's since becoming operational with them. When that day comes - presumably if deployed as a full battalion, will they have to come home after the deployment ends due to there being no trained up replacements (personel, vehicles and support, skilled in LAVIII operations etc)? Or would they deploy as one or two Companies only thus have sufficient reserve manpower for rotations?

2/1 Batt is light infantry. Great skill to maintain (especially with recent Pacific flair-ups), however they are over-stretched with these deployments. Replacement/rotations are coming from a mix of Territorials and RF. The light infantry issue needs a solution. Presumably all part of the Army review and this light patrol force scenario outlined to Gibbo by National's Wayne Mapp?

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Lucasnz]

I'm going to add my 2 cents on the "what National did and Labour did".

National came to power in the 1990 with a 5 billion dollar deficit. It didn't have money to burn, like Labour does now and it explains of lot about how National approached defence. But while defence was strapped for Cash, the government allowed defence to close bases etc to free up resources to maintain what we had.

It should be remembered that with the exception of Project Protector, which was still under review all the projects implemented by Labour (Javelin etc) were started under a National Government. Since coming to power Labour has not implemented a single new project from inception, except Project Protector.

Since Labour came to power combat capability has declined for all services, per the list, with the exception of the Army.

• Cut the ASW out of the Orion Upgrade - at a time when the ASW threat in the SEA region is increasing
• Cut the ACF, despite as the Quigley report recommending the deal
• Scrapped a 3rd ANZAC Frigate

National did defence no favours in the 1990's but much of that could be blamed in the first 6 years on budget constraints. However at least National attempted to maintain what we had it one form or another. Labour on the other hand as seriously downgraded the NZDF.

 

[recce.k1]

I'll reply to your last point today - I wouldn't waste too much effort analysing National's 1990's defence efforts because the circumstances were alot different. Basically National inherited a debt ridden economy and the situation was serious. Defence expenditure was cut (remember most previous National/Labour finance minister's did not regard defence as important, they had no interest) along with many others (including the infamous welfare cuts). I'm no economist but it would be helpful if someone else really could spell out how precarious the NZ economy was in, during the late 80's/early 90's, for the sake of many here (and elsewhere) who wonder why NZ spends so little on defence.

National in the later part of their term were forced to address the under funding for defence and started to produce plans to replace or upgrade the C130's, the M113's, the A4's, acquire a third-frigate, logistics ship and so on. They had 10 year plans and even a 20 year plan. The only problem was from what I can see, was that not all expenditure was accounted for, which to me isn't suprising considering the state of the economy which was still precarious (remember how the '98 asian crisis affected us) but which fortunately improved vastly after Labour won the 1999 elections. So National started an upgrade process and Labour merely carried it on (meanwhile bagging National for not producing results and instead claiming the credit).

Remember also that although the first two ANZAC Frigates were ordered by the Labour administration (and Labour almost cancelled them in 1990 in order to cury votes at the elections), when National came into power they still had to pay for them throughout their term on an annual basis. So we may not necessarily associate the ANZAC's as being part of National's 1990's defence expenditure but they certainly were real costs to them at the time. A later National defence review reduced the Navy from 4 to 3 Frigate's and the third Frigate was postponed (probably due to the pressing need to upgrade the Army after their Bosnia deployment, and the sudden F16A/B lease arrangement - which personally to me was a mixed blessing - National's original plan was to replace the A4's in 2007 with second hand F16C/D's - perhaps if the F16A/B lease plan didn't come into early fruitition the 3rd ANZAC may have been ordered? And more importantly not give Labour an opportunity to cancel the F16 deal and then use the fact that because the A4 Kahu II upgrades - Harpoons, ECM, laser targeting etc - had been cancelled due to the impending F16A/B lease deal - use the excuse that the A4's were out of date and of no use to anyone etc). As Mr Conservative said, National being a coalition govt couldn't get that 3rd ANZAC approved, hence whether it is right to blame them might not be so. However the 3rd Frigate option was due to expire around 2002 from memory and Labour decided not to take it up, saying that the new MRV would also double as an ocean patrol ship and fulfill the Frigate's functions. Well yes, the MRV does do this to some extent, but is it really the most appropriate ship for patrol functions considering it was really bought to replace the Charles Upham? This is the sort of spin and deception that really annoys me!

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Lucasnz]

Hi Lucas. I don't agree with your version of the timeline.

According to the publically available 'briefing to the NZ government 2005' printout I have, it says "The Javelin missile project...contract was signed December 2003 and deliveries should be completed by July 2006". The earliest mention I could find was in a US department of defense post from 12 July 2000 (under Labour) which said, "The government of New Zealand has requested a possible sale for 24 Javelin anti-tank missile systems (consisting of 24 Javelin command launch units and 164 Javelin missile rounds)". If it was a firm National party policy they could have ordered an Anti Tank Guided Missile themselves at any stage they were in power.

The Lav111s were ordered January 2001. Perhaps I missed the National Government's announcement of their new Light Armoured Vehicle purchase prior to the 1999 election. I suspect there was no announcement.

Re the 757s "The contract to purchase the two aircraft was let in February 2003. The first aircraft, NZ7571, arrived in New Zealand early May 2003; the second aircraft, NZ7572, arrived in late June 2003." Per NZ Ministry of Defense website.

The Light Operational Vehicles were ordered in 2004, 4 to 5 years after National lost. Not a National Government policy they put any money behind.

I've already commented on how National had 9 years in power to order a 3rd or 4th Anzac frigate. Blaming Labour for "scraping a 3rd Anzac frigate" seems to negate National's culpability for not purchasing more. If you must blame Labour, it is only fair to equally blame the other guy who did nothing when they had the opportunity.

You say the first 6 years of National's parsimony were based on budgetary constraints. What about the other 3 years? Based on disinterest?

The argument that I'm making is that while "National attempted to maintain what we had it one form or another", that form was not a high class one. Rather it was an increasingly old and rusting version. Labour has tried to concentrate on the areas we have a verifiable need for - the Army and Navy.

Yes Labour ordered them, but National started the projects. For example the LAV were under consideration before Labour came to power, but was delayed due to infighting over Tracks vs Wheels. The time frame for the Javelin is correct, but remember Labour only got into power in Oct / Nov 99, so any project would have had to have been started prior to Labour obtaining power. I've been following the MOD website for a long term, and while my memory might be failing , I'm reasonable certain of the fact. For example the MOD Forecast written in May 2000 stated a need to progress some or all of the following projects, just 7 months after Labour coming to power.

— light operational vehicles for the Army
— direct fire support (area) weapons for the Army
— medium range anti-armour weapons for the Army
— special operations communications systems
— tactical communications for the Army
— P3 Orion mission equipment for the Air Force
— armoured vehicles for the Army
— maritime helicopters for the Navy
— conversion of HMNZS Charles Upham for the Navy
— very low level air defence alerting and cueing system for the Army
— joint command and control system.

Having argued the point, I suspect this discussion is mute given whats happen in the intervening 7-8 years.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

If the policy was for a rotation of two infantry battalions then around 125 LAV's would of been more appropriate.

Thats just it, The policy was for a two motorised battalion rotation, there was an audit office report on that entire issue and the nature of advice tendered to cabinet and what was actually delivered by defence.

We are now in the era of Company Groups for rotations or a one time six month stint with a Battalion Group.

By design, or by cock up? Two battalion rotation was the agreed policy, since dropped, but why?{probably cost I suspect, and manning levels}.

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.

Im not sure thats the right question so much as what are we we willing to pay for in terms of unit numbers?.The nature of equipment will always be dependent on where we see ouselves operating and under what conditions balanced by some 'what if' thinking and the usual dollop of cost.

However this does not alter one salient point:The accepted way to maintain a unit abroad is one deployed, one in refit and one gearing up to deploy.
I dont see how you can get around it, and I think that Timor showed it; we were badly overstreched and the retention rates, and the vicious cycle we got into with retention, are evidence of that.
This problem is especially true with commitments being multi year or longer, the more strung out you become, the more you loose and the more pressure goes on the remainder, and this regardless of the intensity of operation.

Its not just about equipment, we either do it properly or accept that no NZ battalion group will deploy.

 

[Markus40]

Im not an Army expert, but has anything been done to look at a replacement for the melting Styers?

 

[Stuart Mackey]

The argument that I'm making is that while "National attempted to maintain what we had it one form or another", that form was not a high class one. Rather it was an increasingly old and rusting version. Labour has tried to concentrate on the areas we have a verifiable need for - the Army and Navy.

I would put things another way: Labour has set up an artificial view of the world as it pertains to defence matters and payed defence to supply forces enough only to deal with that self limited horizon. We had something Labour and the Alliance didnt like, did not want to pay for, and they did for it, simple as that.

I think the crux of any defence argument, how does one veiw the world, and Labours view reminds me far to much of Ten Year Rules to be comfortable with.

 

[fob]

However this does not alter one salient point:The accepted way to maintain a unit abroad is one deployed, one in refit and one gearing up to deploy.
I dont see how you can get around it, and I think that Timor showed it; we were badly overstreched and the retention rates, and the vicious cycle we got into with retention, are evidence of that.
This problem is especially true with commitments being multi year or longer, the more strung out you become, the more you loose and the more pressure goes on the remainder, and this regardless of the intensity of operation.

Its not just about equipment, we either do it properly or accept that no NZ battalion group will deploy.[/QUOTE]S.Mackey









I agree on that point you have to do things in three units (whatever the size may be) or attrition rates for our forces and defence machines just cant keep up with the modern conflict zones of this world, unless we do a part time defence force which Labour has us geared up for. We need an extra frigate and more lavs or tracked vehicles and extra soldiers and support staff that come with it. The NZDF will have trouble retaining quality personnel if we keep on running them into the ground, high staff turnover and retraining costs more in the long term.

 

[recce.k1]

Regarding the Agenda interview with Murray McCully on TVNZ, the DomPost and Press ran a follow up story yesterday:

National is preparing to rule out reinstating an air force combat wing, saying bigger priorities exist in government.

Leader John Key said yesterday it was "extremely unlikely" that National would want to restore the air force strike wing, and that would be made clear in a pending discussion paper.

"I'd be ruling out us bringing back a strike wing; I just don't see it as a priority," Mr Key said.

Full article at http://www.stuff.co.nz/4178929a11.html

Whilst this might appear as disappointing, I can accept the reality that there are more pressing air force priorities to spend the defence dollar on such as the C130 replacement & eventual P3 replacement in the next decade or so (these could potentially cost us at least $2-3B if not a whole lot more, assuming an A400 or P8 type is chosen) but one would hope that the MB339 training reactivation and P3 ASW upgrade and stand off ASM projects etc are re-prioritised accordingly in the meantime.

Some people posting here have also suggested previously that any ACF would better off wait until a future date once other defence upgrades have taken priority and perhaps the geo-political situation warrants such a move. Sounds realistic in light of NZ’s funding problems.

On the other hand another option for National could be to seek cheap second hand aircraft similar to the F16A/B lease deal but personally I think that runs the risk of another F16 lease arrangement over-riding other more pressing priorities and it all could end up as are-run of the F16 cancellation of 2000 if Labour won the 2011 election and decided to spend the money in other defence areas.

If this is the reality of the situation, the key is to limit the ongoing loss of institutional knowledge by not having an air combat force. Currently we have the MB339’s (and the A4’s) in storage, plus at least a couple of jet qualified pilots keeping the MB339’s flying, and then there was that earlier suggestion in this forum of Wayne Mapp to look into MB339 training reactivation etc. So the question is, how could and what would a change of Govt need to do to justify re-establishing at least a basic jet training programme in the interim (and more importantly as Stuart has stated – why? Why should a change of Govt re-establish a jet training programme – for navy and army support training). These are the sorts of questions the press and the current govt would be questioning. How do you sell to the public of NZ the need for a basic NZDF jet training squadron when potentially it may or may not lead to anything greater (and if so, when)?

Perhaps we all need to come up with some good reasons before National decides to put this in the too hard basket!

 

[Bushwhacker NZ]

If any of you kiwis/aussies saw the news, you might of noticed the Australian Army complaining about the reliability of the Steyr & other weapons in their arsenal. If this problem is happening in New Zealand then I reckon we should look for a change of main service rifles.

Just thought you should know...

 

[fob]

Sure, the political climate now makes any rebuilding of the ACF next to impossible, now that there are pressing needs such as replacement of C130s and the P3s in the near future.

Retaining a jet training squadron is vitally important. NZ really needs an end game strategy, if we look at conflicts where enemies were taken out of the war early before it spread, it always has been air power that has achieved this! For example Israel's war with Syria and Egypt in the 70s, Falklands war, Battle of Britain (stopped Nazis coming to their shores), Desert Storm, there have been countless other conflicts.
Okay we wont be seeing any invasion soon but air power I believe is pound for pound the most effective means of stopping conflicts without huge losses, for example two jet fighters might be able to sink a warship 180 sailors lost with maybe 1 jet lost with possibility that the pilot might be able to eject safely, you do the maths which side has lost considerably. I have used this example as NZ is a maritime nation so might sound more realistic.
Air power can project into a region quickly it makes hostile enemies think twice and protects our naval and army assets in regions where conflicts may boil over. Any hostile naval power projection into our region run the gambit of our jet fighters (if we had any), two frigates is not a strong enough deterrent.
When it comes down to foreign policy in our region the weight of our minister's words carry more emphasis if we can back it up with the ability to strike, hostile nations would then have to take a more careful approach to NZ foreign policy and interests in our region the south pacific and sth east asia (trade routes), this is what I call an end game strategy, without it we have to rely on our allies or protest to the UN, so much for independance and sovereignty when you rely heavily on others to protect it.

This is why having a jet training squadron gives us options so in the future if we choose to, or can afford to have an ACF we have not shot ourselves in the foot as we sometimes do, and have the ability to pursue this option without too much difficulty as opposed to starting again from scratch which by then the costs would be astronomical.
In saying this it might make more sense to finish off the purchases of replacements to the C130s and P3s before reactivating the ACF if we do decide to go down that path, can someone tell me are we the only developed nation in the world without a jet squadron, dont include places like Monaco though that would be embarrasing.
I think a gradual program might be best where we might look at slowly increasing the size of the training squadron until we reach the maximum amount of pilots for the number of MB339 jets. I think it best to start it when project protector is finished and up and running, so the MoD and NZDF can take time to gear up and revitalise public interest in maintaining a jet training sqadron a vital part of the future of NZDF.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip I think it best to start it when project protector is finished and up and running, so the MoD and NZDF can take time to gear up and revitalise public interest in maintaining a jet training sqadron a vital part of the future of NZDF.

As I am wont to say 'Why'? If one is to argue the case I would also advise talking about more immediate needs rather than just talking about future threats, allthough there is an obvious place for that.

McCully talked on Agenda about niche forces, for example; such niche forces that we send overseas must be able to work properly within the context of a balanced force to do its job, it would follow that for that niche ability to do its job it must train within a balanced force here in NZ.
A New Zealand infantry platoon protecting the NZ PRT in Afghanistan has been ambushed by taliban or other insurgent forces, and requires air support from an allied nation.
How can that air support be confidently controlled if the platoon comander has no in depth knowledge of this and has been instucted by people whose own practicle skill is not kept current through practice?.
I would suggest that such practice can be supplied if the RNZAF has a functional light attack capability.

 

[fob]

As I am wont to say 'Why'? If one is to argue the case I would also advise talking about more immediate needs rather than just talking about future threats, allthough there is an obvious place for that.

McCully talked on Agenda about niche forces, for example; such niche forces that we send overseas must be able to work properly within the context of a balanced force to do its job, it would follow that for that niche ability to do its job it must train within a balanced force here in NZ.
A New Zealand infantry platoon protecting the NZ PRT in Afghanistan has been ambushed by taliban or other insurgent forces, and requires air support from an allied nation.
How can that air support be confidently controlled if the platoon comander has no in depth knowledge of this and has been instucted by people whose own practicle skill is not kept current through practice?.
I would suggest that such practice can be supplied if the RNZAF has a functional light attack capability.

Do you mean they have attack choppers or use the MB339 in a light attack role in terms of functional light attack capability? Any RNZAF light attack capability would almost be based on an armed L/UH, could we afford better? like the Tiger attack chopper well choppers make more sense easy to transport can be based in most terrains, less time to set up as opposed to jets that need runways, etc.

 

[Todjaeger]

Do you mean they have attack choppers or use the MB339 in a light attack role in terms of functional light attack capability? Any RNZAF light attack capability would almost be based on an armed L/UH, could we afford better? like the Tiger attack chopper well choppers make more sense easy to transport can be based in most terrains, less time to set up as opposed to jets that need runways, etc.

I believe Stuart Mackey was actually referring to a requirement where the NZDF train personnel to work with air support.

As I am wont to say 'Why'? If one is to argue the case I would also advise talking about more immediate needs rather than just talking about future threats, allthough there is an obvious place for that.

McCully talked on Agenda about niche forces, for example; such niche forces that we send overseas must be able to work properly within the context of a balanced force to do its job, it would follow that for that niche ability to do its job it must train within a balanced force here in NZ.
A New Zealand infantry platoon protecting the NZ PRT in Afghanistan has been ambushed by taliban or other insurgent forces, and requires air support from an allied nation.
How can that air support be confidently controlled if the platoon comander has no in depth knowledge of this and has been instucted by people whose own practicle skill is not kept current through practice?.
I would suggest that such practice can be supplied if the RNZAF has a functional light attack capability.

To paraphrase, I take this to mean an NZ platoon is deployed somewhere in an operationally hazardous area. Allied close air support (or for that matter long range artillery) is available if and when needed. However, in order for the NZ troops to benefit from the close air support, instead of it being ineffectual or make conditions more hazardous, the NZ personnel need to know what and how to call in air strikes, designate targets, etc.

If NZ has no capability to conduct such training and skill personnel or keep them current in forward air observer roles, then NZ will either have to allow the skills to lapse, or rely on allied militaries to provide such training opportunities. That "gap" in training might end up meaning that a NZ force is not useful due to a need for training prior to effective deployment, or the potential for inordinate losses due to lack of effective CAS.

Given that NZ already owns the aircraft needed to conduct such training, and hasn't found an interested buyer for them in the past 5+ years, it does seem sensible to at least make some use of something already owned and purchased by NZ.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

If any of you kiwis/aussies saw the news, you might of noticed the Australian Army complaining about the reliability of the Steyr & other weapons in their arsenal. If this problem is happening in New Zealand then I reckon we should look for a change of main service rifles.

Just thought you should know...

That has been mentioned a few times, issues about the Steyr (or Austeyr) reliability. When did you see it in the news? I ask this because some of the current or ex-ADF personnel (Aussie Digger, Old Faithful, Simon9, etc) have mentioned that the issues have been resolved the Austeyr is satisfactory now. Any repeated issues that personnel currently have with the rifle performance are much more to do with poor training or improper weapons handling.

-Cheers

 

[barra]

If any of you kiwis/aussies saw the news, you might of noticed the Australian Army complaining about the reliability of the Steyr & other weapons in their arsenal. If this problem is happening in New Zealand then I reckon we should look for a change of main service rifles.

What you saw was a media beat-up of what could be expected in a hot, dry and dusty operational enviroment. Of course the opposition Labour mouthpiece jumped on board to wring whatever political advantage they could out of it. This type of reporting is irresponsible in the extreme, as if the spouses and parents of deployed troops don't have enough to be concerned about. Its an aspect of this debate that people don't consider unless they have experienced it.

As for NZ replacing their rifles, I wouldn't hold your breath. When you consider the record (or lack of) of recent defence purchases, the AUSTEYR will remain for quite some time yet.

Hooroo