NZDF General discussion thread

[Stuart Mackey]

We will only find out how much we will spend when actual combat troops are deployed, I believe that retention will have to be looked at not only by the government but by the NZDF

When it comes to exact amounts, then yes, however we can extrapolate to a reasonable degree from the costs incurred by other nations who currently have forces in action.

currently there is a perception in the NZDF that infantry can be trained quickly Army are correct to a point a rifleman can be trained to a basic level in 6 months but these are not the soldiers we are losing its the senior Corporal/ Sergent & Staff Sergent that are leaving this is the bracket where our knowledge & experience are held.

Indeed. Aside from the ever present pay issue, I have long thought that the armed forces needs to grow in size to provide viable career options for more people. Given the size of the NZDF, lets face it, there are only so many opportunities for talented low to mid rank persons, commissioned or other ranks, to realistically aspire to, if they cannot go further, and earn more, then they leave.

If Infantry are deployed with there vehicles this will certainly strip Linton of all its combat spt/ Cmbt Services spt as well so something has to give - Timor/Solomons/PRT? 2 understrength battalions into three major deployments dont fit.

Correct, and for that reason there have been reports of a need for better utilization of reserve forces in the media and in Army Times, but I am not sure how that is overly credible given the lack of equipment, and personell numbers, for the territorial 'units'. If we wish to sustain proper combat operations then, I think, that the territorials need to be properly equipped and staffed as deployable units, as well as an additional logistics battalion and more engineers.

On the note of the effective reserve capacity, maybe we should look to history and one of the items of the Cardwell reforms of the British army, suitably modified: Those soldiers and officers that enlist in the regular forces, for whatever term, must serve three or so years in a territorial regiment or in an unformed reserve when no suitable vacancies exist in reserve units. Just an idea to think about.

 

[recce.k1]

but these are not the soldiers we are losing its the senior Corporal/ Sergent & Staff Sergent that are leaving this is the bracket where our knowledge & experience are held.

Just out of curiosity and without getting you into any trouble, is this normal i.e. this is nothing unusual as it happens from time to time, or is this something that has got worse in recent years. If so why? Especially in these times of greater operational deployments and re-equipping with modern equipment, one would have thought these would be interesting times to be in the Army (or is it fair to say that people/resources are being stretched with too much going on in recent years etc. But again this begs the question why this particular group is affected the most)?

 

[Cadredave]

Just out of curiosity and without getting you into any trouble, is this normal i.e. this is nothing unusual as it happens from time to time, or is this something that has got worse in recent years. If so why? Especially in these times of greater operational deployments and re-equipping with modern equipment, one would have thought these would be interesting times to be in the Army (or is it fair to say that people/resources are being stretched with too much going on in recent years etc. But again this begs the question why this particular group is affected the most)?

All this re-equipment has done nothing to stop the exodus of this rank bracket as NZ Infantry we can command a decent pay packet on the circuit (civilian contractors in Afganistan & Iraq) for our skills due to the way we train the way we think & more importantly the way we interact with different cultures. Why this group from my point of veiw we are tired pure & simple with a Army strength of 4000 + most of the training falls on the shoulders of the Cpl, Sgt, & SSgt after a while like anyone you get tired & no amount of incentives works.

 

[Sea Toby]

I believe one of the problems with New Zealand defence forces is its small size. Many of its NCO's don''t receive the rewards of higher rank because they are needed to do the work of a lesser rank. When there is not enough movement upward, the personnel move upward in the civilian world instead. This is fundamentally a funding problem: wages and personnel.

Because of a funding problem, two frigates are doing the work of three. This same funding problem reaches into the army and air force too. While the government's policies have been wise from a political point of view, it has not been wise from an organization point of view.

 

[recce.k1]

Just wondering, could the NZDF make use of experienced ex-Army Cpl's/Sgt's/SSgts's being "contracted" back in or as Reservists/Territorial Force for the training? If so how would these guys be perceived by the rank and file? (Mind you a bollocking from these guys would be just as intense whether they are RF or Contracted)!

If some ex-Cpl's/Sgt's etc could be found in between overseas contract postings, assuming of course the contract back to the NZDF is financially attractive (and mind you the Govt is always big on paying external Contracters in the Govt run Departments) then perhaps it's one solution and think of the added experience they will bring especially with their work and techniques learnt from other Contractors/Army's from other nations and in current warfighting operations etc.

Obviously better base pay/conditions/not making do with working less assets harder (eg Navy) is another issue that only the pollies can tackle.

 

[Sea Toby]

Just wondering, could the NZDF make use of experienced ex-Army Cpl's/Sgt's/SSgts's being "contracted" back in or as Reservists/Territorial Force for the training? If so how would these guys be perceived by the rank and file? (Mind you a bollocking from these guys would be just as intense whether they are RF or Contracted)!

If some ex-Cpl's/Sgt's etc could be found in between overseas contract postings, assuming of course the contract back to the NZDF is financially attractive (and mind you the Govt is always big on paying external Contracters in the Govt run Departments) then perhaps it's one solution and think of the added experience they will bring especially with their work and techniques learnt from other Contractors/Army's from other nations and in current warfighting operations etc.

Obviously better base pay/conditions/not making do with working less assets harder (eg Navy) is another issue that only the pollies can tackle.

However, a nation which passes anti-nuclear propulsion legislation, which emits zero green house gases into the atmosphere, is not a truly friendly nation while undermining any defense relationship. Submarines and to an extent aircraft carriers lose much of their sustainability when such useless legislation is passed.

 

[tomahawk6]

Why does NZ even bother with a military ? No combat planes.Virtually no Navy.Just pay Australia $1b a year for protection and be ahead of the game.

 

[Sea Toby]

Why does NZ even bother with a military ? No combat planes.Virtually no Navy.Just pay Australia $1b a year for protection and be ahead of the game.

I haven't seen Canada or Mexico pay any fees. But there is support to protect NZ fisheries. Even the Greens want to send one of their two frigates to protect whales from Japanese whaling. There is support to provide humanitarian assistance to all of the island nations after a natural disaster. And there is support to send a moderised company group to do UN peace support missions.

The majority of New Zealanders have seen the Bali bombing, anarchy in the Solomon Islands, and an independence movement and UN supervised elections in East Timor. Not to mention natural disasters from time to time in their neighboring island nations. Even New Zealand itself has seen natural disasters.

New Zealanders. much like Americans. prefer and are willing to pay the costs for stability in their neighboring nations.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[old faithful]

However, a nation which passes anti-nuclear propulsion legislation, which emits zero green house gases into the atmosphere, is not a truly friendly nation while undermining any defense relationship. Submarines and to an extent aircraft carriers lose much of their sustainability when such useless legislation is passed.

Not truly a friendly nation??? To who? they are very friendly to Australia,the UK,South pacific nations...oh you must mean the other country in the world, the USA...

 

[Sea Toby]

I was under the impression New Zealand wanted a defense relationship with the United States. It doesn't matter to the United States whether New Zealand is conquered or not. New Zealand is barely under the United States horizon, there is nothing there the United States needs or wants to trade for.

We wanted cheap toys from China. Unfortunately, China did its best to ruin and destroy that market.

 

[Todjaeger]

A few observations that seem to need to be made, some of them not for the first time.

NZ is indeed a sovereign nation, as such it has the right to pass whatever laws it feels are needed or appropriate, such as becoming a Nuclear Free Zone. I do think it germaine to note though that the breakdown of the NZ-US portion of the ANZUS Treaty in fact, if not in declaration, predated both passage and adoption of the law making NZ a Nuclear Free Zone. Rather, NZ choose to adopt an anti-nuclear policy and subsequently passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 which codified part of the policy into law. For a historical perspective, the vessel in question was the USS Buchanan, a Charles F. Adams-class destroyer which was denied entry into NZ ports in Feb. of 1985. The reason being that at the time it was capable of deploying nuclear warhead depth bombs/charges and the US would not state whether it was equipped with them or not.

Something I would be interested in finding out is if vessels belonging to other nuclear powers (UK and France most likely) have been required to declare the status of their armament and denied entry if they refused to declare a lack of nuclear weaponry aboard.

As far as NZ having an alliance with the US, or anyone else for that matter, there would need to be mutual benefit for such an alliance, be it military, political, economic or cultural. What concerns me is that IMV NZ is not an independent nation, rather it is an interdependent nation like most if not all of the rest of the world given the import/export markets of national economies as well as the location of natural resources and industrial bases. What seems to occur amongst some in NZ and elsewhere is a failure to recognize that an interdependency exists and that as a result, events far removed from NZ in terms of location can effect life and the quality of living in NZ. IMV such interdependency should lead to greater NZ engagement and involvement with other nations, as well as a greater awareness of areas of interest to other nations.

What seems to be occuring though has been a level of disengagement and lack of participation (or interest in participation) on the part of NZ, as well as elements that argue for increased non-involvement. I would be interested in hearing what others think of arguments advocating NZ withdrawing personnel from the Solomons, Timor Leste and similar types of situations.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

The Adams class destroyers carried nuclear armed ASROC missiles, as did most of the American cruisers, destroyers, and frigates at that time. I believe the Cold War was still very active during 1985. The United States still has a policy not to tell whether its ships have nuclear weapons aboard. The only thing that has changed is New Zealand's unwillingness to welcome our ships and sailors in their ports. Some ally.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Adams class destroyers carried nuclear armed ASROC missiles, as did most of the American cruisers, destroyers, and frigates at that time. I believe the Cold War was still very active during 1985. The United States still has a policy not to tell whether its ships have nuclear weapons aboard. The only thing that has changed is New Zealand's unwillingness to welcome our ships and sailors in their ports. Some ally.

Can we get back to a discussion on NZ and the NZDF and away from whether the US is happy with a military alliance with NZ? Of greater interest (to me at least) is what the NZ outlook on defence matters is and why, and how NZ expects other countries to react to their defence views.

-Cheers

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

First naval decisions

One of the first significant defence decisions the incoming government will need to make is how to replace some of the current naval vessels. Monowanui (estimated end-of-life 2011), Kahu (2012) and Endeavour (2013) will need to be replaced in some form.

The logical replacment for Kahu is probably another IPV, but Monowanui and Endeavour will be more challenging.

I'm not sure we have the same need for a tanker we did in 1987. Now, unlike then, most units in the fleet have plenty of range. Perhaps a change in emphasis towards cargo and dry stores? A large (6-8 aircraft) aviation facility? A small ro-ro deck?

Monowanui's replacement could potentially add an emergency tug/salvage/oil-recovery capability to the fleet. A helicopter pad (if not a full hanger facility) would be useful.

Thoughts?

 

[Sea Toby]

The big item on the list is the mid-life refits of the Anzacs. Another oiler and diving ship will cost much less than the refits. The costs of the small oiler and diving ship shouldn't be much more than one OPV and one IPV. Refitting the Anzac frigates will almost cost as much as one new frigate. This costs is similar to buying all seven of the Project Protector vessels. What is missing in the plan to refit the frigates is replacing their torpedoes, which have passed their shelf life status.

I would like to see New Zealand replace the diving tender with a true minesweeper, such as a British Sandown class ship. But I expect another oil field support vessel. I believe the Resolution hydrographic ship can still go another ten more years before she will need to be replaced.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I was under the impression New Zealand wanted a defense relationship with the United States. It doesn't matter to the United States whether New Zealand is conquered or not. New Zealand is barely under the United States horizon, there is nothing there the United States needs or wants to trade for.

We wanted cheap toys from China. Unfortunately, China did its best to ruin and destroy that market.

New Zealand is happy to have a defence relationship with the US, but we will not be party to those things that we find to be morally reprehensible.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

The big item on the list is the mid-life refits of the Anzacs. Another oiler and diving ship will cost much less than the refits. The costs of the small oiler and diving ship shouldn't be much more than one OPV and one IPV. Refitting the Anzac frigates will almost cost as much as one new frigate. This costs is similar to buying all seven of the Project Protector vessels. What is missing in the plan to refit the frigates is replacing their torpedoes, which have passed their shelf life status.

I would like to see New Zealand replace the diving tender with a true minesweeper, such as a British Sandown class ship. But I expect another oil field support vessel. I believe the Resolution hydrographic ship can still go another ten more years before she will need to be replaced.

Toby the first and second parts of the Anzac mid-life refit has already been approved. Treasury/Defence have estimated the Endeavour replacement will come close to $300M, so they're obviously thinking about something considerably more capable. I don't think a minesweaper is a started. But Maritime Safety has been making noises about an offshore salvage/emergency towing capability for some time.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

Obviously better base pay/conditions/not making do with working less assets harder (eg Navy) is another issue that only the pollies can tackle.

Its not just our glorious leaders. One thing that is stopping retention is some 'attitudes' within the armed forces which seem to be akin to the British army of the early to mid 20th century.
To give an example, I heard one, comparatively recent, story that an army group made a visit to a major local car importer in the North Island to see what ideas they could pick up. One of the army group suggested that they bring other groups through as what they had seen was pretty good, but the senior officer said that that wouldn't happen because the outfit in question might 'steal' some of them.
A factory manager overheard this and told the senior officer that he had nothing to fear on that account as they did not employ ex army personal as they had found that such persons, frankly, couldn't function in an environment that required originality, innovation and a willingness to challenge authority when necessary to get better results.

I have also heard that private soldiers are not even allowed access to computers to organize their leave periods, letalone order replacement kit when they require it to do their job.

And we expect people, university qualified at that, to stay in this kind of organization where one has to ask permission to use a computer or the culture produces people that cannot think for themselves? Military discipline is one thing, but training and expecting people to have thought patterns that are on railroad tracks will not attract capable people in this day and age and no amount of money or new gear will change that.

Another story to illustrate further this mentality: Recently a civilian, with an army equivalent officer rank, caused a minor uproar by visiting a base to consult an enlisted ranked person about an issue, because that person had the most up to date information. By going outside the chain of command in such a manner he caused great offense to a personage about two paygrades higher than himself. When this great personage rang our civilian to tell him why he should not do this, in no uncertain terms, he was told "Well thats a stupid f******g idea" *click*.