NZDF General discussion thread

[Norm]

Little bit of news on the big E
http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/press-releases/secdef-speech-defence-industry.html
"...Given that we are over half way through the current LTDP we are beginning to turn our thoughts towards what should succeed or replace it. Even now there are projects which have funding requirements beyond the current expiry of the LTDP, and there are others which are over the horizon but in respect of which we will shortly have to start investigating options for replacement. The most immediate of these is the replacement for the C-130s transport aircraft, whose life will come to an end about 2017, the replacements for HMNZS Endeavour and HMNZS Manawanui, and further out, the successors of the ANZACs. This suggests that a programme which takes us through to the 2020s would be the minimum planning horizon that would be desirable."

 

[Norm]

Funding for Night Vision Equipment announcement, have'nt noticed any newspaper pickup on this.

Phil Goff8 October, 2008

Goff: Defence Force to get enhanced night vision capability
The Government has approved funding for a new enhanced night vision capability for the Defence Force, Defence Minister Phil Goff said today.

"It is important that we continue to provide our Defence Force personnel with effective and up to date equipment and technology to reduce risk while they are deployed overseas in countries such as Afghanistan, Timor-Leste and Solomon Islands," Phil Goff said.

"This funding of $15 million over the next two financial years will allow the Defence Force to replace worn out equipment and increase available stocks. The project will deliver 781 sets of night vision goggles, 172 night aiming devices, and 150 individual weapon sights. They will replace night vision equipment that was purchased during the late 1990s and which is fast becoming obsolete.

"The new equipment will allow more effective surveillance, patrolling, low-level flying, naval boarding operations, and operating vehicles.

"Improving the Defence Force's night vision capability will positively impact on the success of current and future operations. It will increase the effectiveness of the New Zealand Defence Force operating at night, while reducing the risk to our soldiers, sailors and air men and women.

"Cabinet has also agreed to the New Zealand Defence Force developing a sustainable night vision capability through the initiation of a rolling investment from 2010/11 onward," Phil Goff said.

"This is estimated to cost between $6.7 million and $10.4 million per year in capital costs and $270,000 to $3.6 million per year in operating costs as stocks of equipment rise over time.

"By adopting an incremental investment approach the NZDF will avoid block obsolescence, keep pace with new technology, and improve levels of preparedness through sufficient training and reserve stocks," Phil Goff said.

"This project is the latest in a long line of projects to be approved by the Government as part of its planned reinvestment, realignment and rebuilding of the New Zealand Defence Force.

"Labour has committed more than $8 billion in capital and operating expenditure above baselines over a 10-year timeframe to rebuild the New Zealand Defence Force," Phil Goff said.

 

[recce.k1]

Thaw with US military slips out on website
HANK SCHOUTEN - The Dominion Post | Saturday, 11 October 2008
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4723164a6479.html

After decades of cold-shoulder treatment, United States military brass are now saying a US-New Zealand military partnership is vital to meet security challenges in the Pacific region.

Joint military exercises are on offer again, according to US Air Force commander Lieutenant General Loyd S Utterback, who was in Wellington last month for a conference hosted by air force chief Air Vice-Marshal Graham Lintott.

Since 1987 the US has blocked New Zealand forces from taking part in routine joint exercises. The only exceptions were preparations for war-zone deployments and, till recently, presidential waivers were required for anything else.

In a statement published on the US Air Force website, General Utterback said a partnership between the US and New Zealand militaries was vital. Being able to plan, share data and operate together could only make the US and New Zealand militaries better.

General Utterback, commander of air, space and information operations in the Pacific area, said: "We simply cannot afford to meet at a disaster site landing zone for the first time and realise that your aircraft can't get fuel from my pump or that we don'thave a common understanding of airspace control."

His visit comes just two months after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared New Zealand an ally - the first time that word had been used since the mid-1980s, when New Zealand barred the entry of nuclear powered or armed ships.

The thaw was underlined this month when New Zealand sent 172 troops to Germany for combat training with US, British, Canadian and Australian troops.

Defence Minister Phil Goff welcomed the "acknowledgement by the US and others of New Zealand's ability to make effective contributions in these areas".

"This provides opportunity for closer and more effective working relationships in areas such as peacekeeping, surveillance of fishery resources and disaster relief."

The US ban on routine exercises with New Zealand has looked increasingly anomalous over recent years, given New Zealand's army, navy and air force commitments in support of the US-led operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since the September 11 attacks.

National defence spokesman Wayne Mapp said General Utterback's comments reflected a US understanding that New Zealand now had a bipartisan defence and foreign policy and that the anti-nuclear policy was not going to change under National.

Terence O'Brien, a fellow at New Zealand's Centre for Strategic Studies, said he was surprised the general's comments had been publicised only on a website.

"The thing that strikes me is that what we now have is a whole series of defence commitments being drip-fed almost out into the public domain, but with no overall policy explanation."

Is it just me or would it be correct to say Terence is one of leading proponents of NZ having an independent/isolationist foreign policy (or is that being too harsh)? Not trying to stir, merely gain a better understanding of his thinking (that I have read over the years).

 

[steve33]

Please can you explain to this current infantryman why we need a Ranger school and the assumption that NZ Infantry need to lift our standards, NZ Infantry like there Aussie cousins are very well trained. having exercised with Rangers/UK/RAR/Canadian and SAS pers around the world there is not much they have to teach us. The hard fought for lessons in Iraq & Afgan are pased directly to us same with there TTP/SOP for urban fighting etc not to mention a few other things that happen out of sight of joe public, you seem to be under the belief that we dont train or exercise with our own SAS or the fact that those soldiers do return to there parent units for a rest or break and bring the corporate knowledge with them. The beauty with our Army is that knowledge is shared from tier 1 - tier 3 soldiers. What we need & Army has already Identified is that we do require a Commando capability to take over some of the taskings that the NZSAS are doing now first example is the black role currently being handed over to CTAG I do take offence to people who look over the fence & think that the grass is greener. NZ Infantry stand on the shoulders of giants we at the end of the day have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. ONWARD - KURA TAKAHI PUNI

Well for a start i never said that the New Zealand army has any thing to prove to anyone else and i didn,t say that they have to lift there standards and i don,t believe the grass is greener on the other side i have nothing but respect for the New Zealand military we have always produced military personnal that are amung the best in the world i had family fight in both world wars and would have been in the New Zealand army myself if not for a motorbike accident at 17yrs which left me with chronic back problems.

It saddens me that other people think the grass is greener on the other side and serve in other countries militaries i would only ever serve with New Zealand and it wouldn,t be for money it would be for pride.

I was looking from my own personnal view on things and , i don,t believe the new Zealand soldier lacks anything they are highly trained people and damn good at what they do but i have no doubt you as a soldier will relate to this view and this doesn,t apply just to the military it applies in all walks of life and activities there is never any harm no matter how good you are at what you do in in asking yourself how can i make myself even better and i looked at a Ranger or Commando school as an enhancement to the New Zealand army not to say that the New Zealand army was lacking in anyway.

The New Zealand army is well trained but when i looked at it there is the infantry battalions and the SAS but not a unit in between that is special operations capable and that is where i looked at a Ranger or commando school being a good thing and from that you could have a quick reaction Ranger/commando company on standby which could do there own operations or operate in support of SAS.

Another reason i thought of the Ranger/Commando school was as a way to create another challenge another goal that the New Zealand soldier could strive for a way to create as much oppurtunity as possiable in the army for people so that they don,t think the grass is greener on the other side they feel they can achieve what they want in the New Zealand army they don,t have to look offshore and that could help improve rentention of personnal.

My post was not meant in anyway to put down the capabilities of the New Zealand soldier who i have nothing but respect for.

 

[StevoJH]

Well for a start i never said that the New Zealand army has any thing to prove to anyone else and i didn,t say that they have to lift there standards and i don,t believe the grass is greener on the other side i have nothing but respect for the New Zealand military we have always produced military personnal that are amung the best in the world i had family fight in both world wars and would have been in the New Zealand army myself if not for a motorbike accident at 17yrs which left me with chronic back problems.

It saddens me that other people think the grass is greener on the other side and serve in other countries militaries i would only ever serve with New Zealand and it wouldn,t be for money it would be for pride.

I was looking from my own personnal view on things and , i don,t believe the new Zealand soldier lacks anything they are highly trained people and damn good at what they do but i have no doubt you as a soldier will relate to this view and this doesn,t apply just to the military it applies in all walks of life and activities there is never any harm no matter how good you are at what you do in in asking yourself how can i make myself even better and i looked at a Ranger or Commando school as an enhancement to the New Zealand army not to say that the New Zealand army was lacking in anyway.

The New Zealand army is well trained but when i looked at it there is the infantry battalions and the SAS but not a unit in between that is special operations capable and that is where i looked at a Ranger or commando school being a good thing and from that you could have a quick reaction Ranger/commando company on standby which could do there own operations or operate in support of SAS.

Another reason i thought of the Ranger/Commando school was as a way to create another challenge another goal that the New Zealand soldier could strive for a way to create as much oppurtunity as possiable in the army for people so that they don,t think the grass is greener on the other side they feel they can achieve what they want in the New Zealand army they don,t have to look offshore and that could help improve rentention of personnal.

My post was not meant in anyway to put down the capabilities of the New Zealand soldier who i have nothing but respect for.

How do you justify a separate "commando" unit in an army that has 3-4 battalions as it is, total. With an army that size, the only real option is better training for the regular units, because organising a second "special forces" unit would risk diluting the pool of elite SAS troopers too much.

An example of this would be the UK SAS, of which there are less then 300. The UK government wanted to increase their size but they resisted because they felt it would decrease the quality of the troops, this is in an army of over 100,000 troops, compared to New Zealands army of ~4,000. Instead the British army reformed one of its para battalions as a tri-service special forces support group, an option not available to the New Zealand Army due to lack of size.

 

[steve33]

How do you justify a separate "commando" unit in an army that has 3-4 battalions as it is, total. With an army that size, the only real option is better training for the regular units, because organising a second "special forces" unit would risk diluting the pool of elite SAS troopers too much.

An example of this would be the UK SAS, of which there are less then 300. The UK government wanted to increase their size but they resisted because they felt it would decrease the quality of the troops, this is in an army of over 100,000 troops, compared to New Zealands army of ~4,000. Instead the British army reformed one of its para battalions as a tri-service special forces support group, an option not available to the New Zealand Army due to lack of size.

Well i was thinking along the lines of an elite airborne company that could be deployed at short notice not up to the standard of SAS but top quality troops who could carry out there own missions or operate in support of SAS if required and the company could also operate as a feeder to the SAS the soldiers in the company would get a good grounding in special operations and help prepare them if the SAS is a path they want to take and the SAS could also keep an eye on the company for potential recruits.

That is how i justify it.

 

[StevoJH]

Well i was thinking along the lines of an elite airborne company that could be deployed at short notice not up to the standard of SAS but top quality troops who could carry out there own missions or operate in support of SAS if required and the company could also operate as a feeder to the SAS the soldiers in the company would get a good grounding in special operations and help prepare them if the SAS is a path they want to take and the SAS could also keep an eye on the company for potential recruits.

That is how i justify it.

With the size of the New Zealand army the SAS could keep an eye on every combat soldier in the army almost.

 

[Cadredave]

How do you justify a separate "commando" unit in an army that has 3-4 battalions as it is, total. With an army that size, the only real option is better training for the regular units, because organising a second "special forces" unit would risk diluting the pool of elite SAS troopers too much.

An example of this would be the UK SAS, of which there are less then 300. The UK government wanted to increase their size but they resisted because they felt it would decrease the quality of the troops, this is in an army of over 100,000 troops, compared to New Zealands army of ~4,000. Instead the British army reformed one of its para battalions as a tri-service special forces support group, an option not available to the New Zealand Army due to lack of size.

Its been many years since the NZ Army had 3-4 Infantry Battalions we currently have 2 x RF Infantry Battalions our TF(TA) Infantry Battalions reroled in the late 90's early 2000 they are currently struggling to provide 1 x Rilfe Coy for the 4 North Island TF Bn. that is the reason Gunners & engineers have had to rerole as Light Infantry for East Timor to give the 2 x RF Battlions a break & rest but more importantly to concentrate on Afgan & the PRT protection.

 

[Cadredave]

With the size of the New Zealand army the SAS could keep an eye on every combat soldier in the army almost.

I apologize for my last out burst there are three tiers to any Army tier 1 being SAS etc, tier 2 4RAR commando & Tier 3 being myself. I'm an Infantryman from the POE(Point of Entry) Coy days we were established after the first Fiji coup, this role was disbanded with Ranger Coy stepping up in Papakura followed by there disbandment due to budget constraints etc. However what we all realised is that each has there place the 2 RF Infantry Bn provide the bulk of soldiers to the SAS. The SAS use us to train the Army Logistics/Sigs/Airforce & navy volunteers who pass selection but fail the advanced SAS training we ground these pers in basic light Infantry skills so they can finish. As a light infanteer my training has been more diverse than any of my peers in Aussie, UK, Canada & especially the US our size counts against us for somethings however being small gives us more opportunities to train with the boys in Pap than is posible with very large armies, Tier 2 soldiers will come back in the near future when is up to CA & CDF, if we had Ranger Coy now we would not of lost so many experienced & well trained Infantry Corporal/Sergeants/Staff Sergeants to Dyno Corp & Armour Group when 1 RNZIR reroled to Cav they would still be in mind you this is my personel opinion.

 

[steve33]

I apologize for my last out burst there are three tiers to any Army tier 1 being SAS etc, tier 2 4RAR commando & Tier 3 being myself. I'm an Infantryman from the POE(Point of Entry) Coy days we were established after the first Fiji coup, this role was disbanded with Ranger Coy stepping up in Papakura followed by there disbandment due to budget constraints etc. However what we all realised is that each has there place the 2 RF Infantry Bn provide the bulk of soldiers to the SAS. The SAS use us to train the Army Logistics/Sigs/Airforce & navy volunteers who pass selection but fail the advanced SAS training we ground these pers in basic light Infantry skills so they can finish. As a light infanteer my training has been more diverse than any of my peers in Aussie, UK, Canada & especially the US our size counts against us for somethings however being small gives us more opportunities to train with the boys in Pap than is posible with very large armies, Tier 2 soldiers will come back in the near future when is up to CA & CDF, if we had Ranger Coy now we would not of lost so many experienced & well trained Infantry Corporal/Sergeants/Staff Sergeants to Dyno Corp & Armour Group when 1 RNZIR reroled to Cav they would still be in mind you this is my personel opinion.

It is really good that you are able to have contact with the SAS guys as much as you do i didn,t realize that.

Do you know if the Army top brass are keen on having a Ranger company again and what do you think are the chances of it happening i am a big fan of a Ranger school and a company of Rangers for the New Zealand army as you know,i think it would be a real positive for the army.

Being in the army i wanted to ask you my grandfather fought in WW2 with the 22nd Battalion headquarters company he was in transport they had from what i understand a transport platoon and a advanced transport platoon.

Do you know what he would have been doing as part of that transport platoon i know he drove trucks because he got in trouble for leaving one unattended in the desert.

Would he have been driving the battalions soldiers around and moving supplies etc.

He was a former speedway racer and i was wondering did the people in the transport platoons also do dispatch riding.

Sorry for the change of topic but being in the NZ army i was hoping you may know the answers.

 

[Navor86]

I myself was also thinking of the possibility of raising NZ Commandos similiar to 4th RAR: Lets take a US Ranger Coy as a baseline it has 178 Men per Company and icludes Infantry ,Mortars, Anti Tank ,Snipers and Support MGs.
By raising 2 Coys you would just need 400 add Men.
Why 2 Coys? Because Im counting 1 Platoon Group (3Inf Squads,1 MG Squad,1,AT Squad and a Sniper Team) to support 1 Troop of NZSAS. If you look at other Nations(Canada,UK, Aus) the Ratio is the same,one Company of Rangers/Commandos etc per Squadron of Special Forces.

 

[steve33]

I myself was also thinking of the possibility of raising NZ Commandos similiar to 4th RAR: Lets take a US Ranger Coy as a baseline it has 178 Men per Company and icludes Infantry ,Mortars, Anti Tank ,Snipers and Support MGs.
By raising 2 Coys you would just need 400 add Men.
Why 2 Coys? Because Im counting 1 Platoon Group (3Inf Squads,1 MG Squad,1,AT Squad and a Sniper Team) to support 1 Troop of NZSAS. If you look at other Nations(Canada,UK, Aus) the Ratio is the same,one Company of Rangers/Commandos etc per Squadron of Special Forces.

I like the sound of that,it would be great for the New Zealand army.

Cadredave stated in his earlier post he believed if we had a Ranger company we wouldn,t have lost so many experienced corporals,sergeants,staff sergeants and i believe him.

I really hope it happens.

 

[bowex]

2008 Election

Some recent policy releases for the election:

Labour
http://www.labour08.co.nz/policies/National+Life+&+Identity/Defence

Over the last nine years within the Defence Force, Labour has promoted:

* A joint approach to structure and operations by the three services
* A modernised and re-equipped army
* An enhanced navy fleet matched to New Zealand’s wider security needs
* A refocused and updated air force
* A funding commitment to provide financial certainty

Labour will continue to invest in a modern, well-staffed and well-equipped Defence Force capable of protecting New Zealand’s interests and participating in peacekeeping and security operations regionally and internationally

We accept that there will be times when we need to use force as a last resort to protect and promote our values and interests. For this reason the Defence Force needs to retain combat capabilities.

Labour will publish a new White Paper on Defence in 2009, coinciding with the mid-point review of the Defence Sustainability Initiative and the development of a new capital expenditure programme for the period from 2012 (when the current Long Term Development Plan ends).

ACT
http://www.act.org.nz/files/plan/national_security_policy.pdf

Our Defence Force must have balance, which will not be achieved by politicians picking favourites. Defence is a team and, like any, is only as strong as its weakest player. As such, all capabilities will be reviewed to ensure that the long term funding and purchase decisions of the RNZN (Navy), NZ Army and RNZAF (Air Force) – which affect capabilities for 30-50 years in some cases - do not leave capability gaps and are harmonised with those of our traditional allies.

* Re-merge the MOD and NZDF as recommended in the Hunn Report.
* the re-commissioning of the Aermacchi jets in both traininga nd limited operational roles and disposal of the Skyhawks as parts and collectors’ items.
* Lease a third ANZAC Class frigate to bring the RNZN frigate Squadron up to its minimum functioning capability for remaining on station (3:1). To not do so is to effectively write off a green-water, combat capable navy over time.

New Zealand First
http://www.winstonpeters.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/new-zealand-first-2008-policy.doc

(Page 14-16)

Our defence objectives are best achieved through trade, diplomacy, economic and technical aid, continuing support for the United Nations, and in peace-keeping and peace-making operations.

New Zealand First is committed to building and maintaining a professional and effective Defence Force appropriate to our size that is self-sufficient, and capable of operating with maximum efficiency and effectiveness.

New Zealand First will:
* create a new maritime focused Defence Force along the lines of the British Royal Marines and the US Marine Corps that concentrates our Defence Force elements
* ensure that this Marine Force has fully integrated combat elements including an Air Combat Capability, capable of providing close air support, deploying across sea gaps, and landing ashore in the absence of port facilities

National
http://national.org.nz/files/2008/defence.pdf

The White Paper process will ensure that defence planning is transparent, robust, and the subject of genuine public consultation. The parts of the review concerned with defence procurement and budgetary processes will be assisted by an independent consultant.

National believes the Defence White Paper will help ensure our forces have the right balance for the foreign policy and security requirements of the next decade, and will help consolidate the defence consensus that has now emerged.

National will:
* Ensure the Defence Force can build security within the South Pacific.
* Emphasise a requirement for agile forces, deployable at long range with relatively short notice.
* Ensure that, when our forces are deployed outside our region, they are focused on specific and specialist capabilities that reflect our defence
expertise.

And bit about the strike wing from John Key at the bottom of this article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4735072a28605.html


Points of interest:

- National and Labour both want a Defence White Paper next year, and both look keen to have a defence force centered around a rapid response, highly deployable army for peace-keeping duties. From what I have read, United Future and the Progressives hold a similar view.
- NZ First wants more integration of NZDF ala US Marine Corps, and is the only party to explicitly advocate the return of an air combat capability.
- ACT would like to see our Macchis put to good use, and for the navy to operate three frigates as a minimum.
- No defence policy from the Maori Party yet.

 

[Cadredave]

I myself was also thinking of the possibility of raising NZ Commandos similiar to 4th RAR: Lets take a US Ranger Coy as a baseline it has 178 Men per Company and icludes Infantry ,Mortars, Anti Tank ,Snipers and Support MGs.
By raising 2 Coys you would just need 400 add Men.
Why 2 Coys? Because Im counting 1 Platoon Group (3Inf Squads,1 MG Squad,1,AT Squad and a Sniper Team) to support 1 Troop of NZSAS. If you look at other Nations(Canada,UK, Aus) the Ratio is the same,one Company of Rangers/Commandos etc per Squadron of Special Forces.

I think this will be the most likely formation of the commando coy it makes sense to use a proven unit formation. I can see 2 x coys however one will be solely doing the green role (traditional POE) & the other the black role (counter Terrorist) with both coy's rotating maybe every two years?

 

[Cadredave]

It is really good that you are able to have contact with the SAS guys as much as you do i didn,t realize that.

Do you know if the Army top brass are keen on having a Ranger company again and what do you think are the chances of it happening i am a big fan of a Ranger school and a company of Rangers for the New Zealand army as you know,i think it would be a real positive for the army.

Being in the army i wanted to ask you my grandfather fought in WW2 with the 22nd Battalion headquarters company he was in transport they had from what i understand a transport platoon and a advanced transport platoon.

Do you know what he would have been doing as part of that transport platoon i know he drove trucks because he got in trouble for leaving one unattended in the desert.

Would he have been driving the battalions soldiers around and moving supplies etc.

He was a former speedway racer and i was wondering did the people in the transport platoons also do dispatch riding.

Sorry for the change of topic but being in the NZ army i was hoping you may know the answers.

The best place to find out the history of 22 Inf Bn is the Army museum, I know from reading the official history of 28 Maori bn that the tpt pl did more than just drive the rifle coy pers around they did in El Alamein ditch there vehicles to fight in fact they fought as riflemen more than they drove.

 

[recce.k1]

Steve: Did you know that many of the official history's of the Army, RNZAF, RNZN, published post WW2 (and now rare as hens teeth) are available on line at the NZ Electronic Text Centre website?

Eg the 22 Batallion history can be viewed at http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-22Ba.html

The search engine can be difficult, but here's the ww2 history index:
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/subject-000004.html

 

[steve33]

The best place to find out the history of 22 Inf Bn is the Army museum, I know from reading the official history of 28 Maori bn that the tpt pl did more than just drive the rifle coy pers around they did in El Alamein ditch there vehicles to fight in fact they fought as riflemen more than they drove.

Thanks for the info,my grandfather fought as an infantryman on Crete because they had no trucks, i have been reading everything i can to try and find out what the normal role is of someone in the transport platoon and see from your post they drive around the infantry and i assume they would be available to do whatever else is required as far as transport goes for the battalion.

 

[steve33]

Steve: Did you know that many of the official history's of the Army, RNZAF, RNZN, published post WW2 (and now rare as hens teeth) are available on line at the NZ Electronic Text Centre website?

Eg the 22 Batallion history can be viewed at http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-22Ba.html

The search engine can be difficult, but here's the ww2 history index:
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/subject-000004.html

Yeah i have been reading them on the net they are great books very well written i actually have at home The offical history of Crete,Greece,The Summer of 1942 my grandfather gave them to me when i was about ten but i put them under the house and forgot about them for twenty years just dug them up a couple of years ago.

From all my reading i have assumed that the battalion transport platoons would have been there for whatever is required,ie transporting infantry,bringing up supplies,riding bikes for dispatch.

 

[KiwiRob]

Thanks for the info,my grandfather fought as an infantryman on Crete because they had no trucks, i have been reading everything i can to try and find out what the normal role is of someone in the transport platoon and see from your post they drive around the infantry and i assume they would be available to do whatever else is required as far as transport goes for the battalion.

My granddad also fought in Greece, Crete, most of the Africa campaign and was also a member of the LRDG, he was a POW for a couple of weeks before eventually coming home in 44.

 

[steve33]

My granddad also fought in Greece, Crete, most of the Africa campaign and was also a member of the LRDG, he was a POW for a couple of weeks before eventually coming home in 44.

What Battalion was he in ?