NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

NM, that $600M funding is set aside for the Army according to the earlier Fairfax article (see below).

I suspect via the link you've posted to the follow-up article (in which the DefMin talks about maritime survellience etc) is a mish-mash of various comments he's made at the Select Committe which another reporter has melded into his follow up article etc. I'd imagine any Air Force BAMS type or RNZN patrol vessel type UAV will be funded as seperate projects.

Defence Earmarks $600m for cyber army
TOM PULLAR-STRECKER
Last updated 05:00 27/06/2013

The Defence Force wants to spend $600 million creating a cyber army.

The Network Enabled Army initiative would see combat units kitted out with drones and robots as well as sensors that would monitor the location, and possibly even the health and condition, of soldiers and vehicles.

The Defence Force has invited would-be technology suppliers to a briefing day at its Trentham military base in August and hopes to take a business case to the Cabinet in October.

Programme manager Colonel Phil Collett said the spending would be over 20 years and the Defence Force would only be playing catchup with its overseas counterparts.

Items such as UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones] and robots were "the kinds of things we could be looking at".

At the moment, the army did not have any surveillance or reconnaissance systems that could go in advance of troops and "see over the next hill", he said.

Other key benefits included reducing the risk of "friendly fire" or so-called "blue-on-blue" incidents, and making it easier to find battle casualties, Colonel Collett said.

"The capability gap we have is the ability for troops in the field to send and receive data and to be able to display information on electronic maps. That is a capability that is in fairly widespread use across a lot of other Western nations."

The spending would not all be on new gadgets and would involve updating the army's existing radios.

The Defence Force planned to present ministers with a variety of options which would have different price tags, Colonel Collett said.

These would range from maintaining its existing capability "right through to a sophisticated solution you would love to have but probably couldn't afford to own".

Technologies that let the army monitor the health of soldiers - whether they were under stress and standing or lying - and the condition of vehicles such as personnel carriers "would be great", he said.

"But we have to look at the maturity and affordability of those technologies. I know people are looking down the track at those technologies, but I am not aware whether anyone has implemented those systems yet."

Although the Cabinet has not yet approved a Network Enabled Army, the Defence Force has made provision for the spending in its long-term capital plan, Colonel Collett said.

"We are identifying up to potentially $600m over 20 years. A big proportion of that, however, would simply be paying for the replacement of equipment such as radios that we already own."

He hoped there would be opportunities for New Zealand-based technology suppliers.

"To be fair, there is probably not a New Zealand company that could take it on their own," he said.
Defence Force Wants To Spend $600 Million Creating... | Stuff.co.nz

Here's the 3News report (which has additional context). Note I'm posting articles rather than linking to them because they can change when updated (eg I see no reference to the 3News link you posted on the safety inquiry anymore about the journo saying it was an attempt to make it look like the Govt was "doing something". Which I suspect is tosh from the journo - why do they add their uninformed comments? According to the Govt they will bring in independant experts from the UK to assist with the inquiry. I suspect as always successive Govt underfunding in a time of high operational tempos is the underlying cause but pollies on both sides will never admit to that)!

Govt downplays 'cyber army' report
Thu, 27 Jun 2013 1:41p.m.
By Laura McQuillan

Reports of a $600 million "cyber army" of drones are being played down by the Government, but it is looking at new digital initiatives for the Defence Force.

The Defence Force's long-term capital plan includes provision for up to $600m over 20 years for the "network-enabled army", which Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman says would focus on "moving from maps to a digital environment".

He says it's "not to do with drones", in response to a report from Fairfax media.

"It's about better communications amongst our troops on the battlefield, as well as the navy and air force," Dr Coleman told media at parliament.
"Better ability to communicate with partner nations in the field, better ability to assemble a picture of what's going on, it ultimately keeps our people safer."

That will help prevent friendly-fire incidents, if troops are able to see where other soldiers and allies are.

However, Dr Coleman is not ruling out unmanned aircraft for the Defence Force, but says it's unlikely New Zealand troops would be using them to attack targets.

"The primary purpose - if, hypothetically, New Zealand was ever to get that capability - would be more around actually gathering intelligence.

"Rather than putting up [an Orion] to go and check on possible illegal fishing in our [waters], it'd be a lot cheaper and more efficient, and the technology would be better, if you could put up an unmanned aircraft which brings up images and directly downloads them back into New Zealand."

Dr Coleman says NZDF is still working on the business case, which he expects to take to cabinet later this year.

NZN

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Govt-downpla...7/articleID/302978/Default.aspx#ixzz2XP6YTetQ

 

[Cadredave]

On another matter the Minister has ordered an immediate enquiry into NZDF safety culture. Coleman orders Defence Force inquiry - Story - Politics - 3 News This is overdue and the item televised noted that the enquiry is being done in response to an apparently damning report regarding the drowning of Private Michael Ross who died whilst on an exercise. This report is due to be released soon and the journo noted that the just announced enquiry was an attempt to make the NZG look like it is doing something. I think I agree with the journo on this.

Why is it so surprising to every man and his dog that when you follow Govt orders to reduce budgets and numbers and IMP the very people who are the back bone with the institutional and corporate knowledge when it came to safety in training both Officer, WO & SNCO's, and those same pers had trained in Australia/UK in small boats and watercraft been a part of Rangers/POE Companies but are side-lined because they are to old school in the way they think?, to old in the way they expect and demand high standards of themselves and those under their command , never ever lost a man to drowning or any type of accident during there watch and now he the minister wants an inquiry please spare me the political BS.

This is the peace dividend all over again

 

[steve33]

Why is it so surprising to every man and his dog that when you follow Govt orders to reduce budgets and numbers and IMP the very people who are the back bone with the institutional and corporate knowledge when it came to safety in training both Officer, WO & SNCO's, and those same pers had trained in Australia/UK in small boats and watercraft been a part of Rangers/POE Companies but are side-lined because they are to old school in the way they think?, to old in the way they expect and demand high standards of themselves and those under their command , never ever lost a man to drowning or any type of accident during there watch and now he the minister wants an inquiry please spare me the political BS.

This is the peace dividend all over again

I couldn't agree more cadre this happened on a bigger scale in the 1930's i read alot about NZ military history and the state that the NZDF was allowed to fall into in the 1930's was a disgrace and we payed for it on Crete.

When the war broke out we had no officer corps we only had 1 battalion with no equipment and officers in the early 1930's were not even able to go over seas and train with other armies till 1934.

What happened in the 1930's was a little different in that they had to hold onto old officers putting them in charge of the battalions and upwards because there was no one else and those older officers were still relying on WW1 experience that really was not relevant to WW2 in a lot of ways espically on Crete facing a parachute drop and then you also had the issue of Peter Fraser the Prime Minister interferring allowing James Hargest into the Division when others didn't want him there and putting him in charge of a brigade which sadly ended up the one defending the key point of battle at Maleme.

Hargest put in the worst performance of a New Zealand brigade commander in WW2 and he wasn't the only senior officer who didn't perform they were not the people we needed but were all we had.

To this day people still talk about Crete and how we shouldn't have lost and they are right but sadly most New Zealanders fail to see why it occured we under funded our military in the 1930's as we always do allowing it to run down and we payed for it with a military disaster.

We had no air support and equpment shortages because so much stuff was lost on Greece but we had enough to win that battle in the early days of the fight and the lower ranks delivered victory it was in our hands but senior leadership decisions threw it away.

Sadly Cadre i don't think things will ever change in this country.

Have you seen the unedited video of that firefight someone released it on youtube i watched it alot of people are making negative comments about the performance of our people but i tend to take that with a grain of salt because 99.9 % of them weren't there.

I wanted to get your opinion on something our people stayed in place on that road with the enemy holding the highground with the advantage over them shouldn't they have kept moving.?was there something keeping them there ie wounded that couldn't be moved because by the time the video footage was being filmed they were only taking some arms fire.

 

[Cadredave]

Have you seen the unedited video of that firefight someone released it on youtube i watched it alot of people are making negative comments about the performance of our people but i tend to take that with a grain of salt because 99.9 % of them weren't there.

I wanted to get your opinion on something our people stayed in place on that road with the enemy holding the highground with the advantage over them shouldn't they have kept moving.?was there something keeping them there ie wounded that couldn't be moved because by the time the video footage was being filmed they were only taking some arms fire.

Sorry Steve your asking questions of a Tactical nature, I wont comment as I was not there during this contact only those who were there know the answers, people have a warped sense of what a real contact is based on watching to many Hollywood movies.

The Taliban are not going to be visible so we cant shoot them like in the movies they know how to fight, camouflage and conceal themselves and like you said 99% of those offering an opinion weren't there and to be honest I don't care too much for there opinions anyway.

CD

 

[steve33]

Sorry Steve your asking questions of a Tactical nature, I wont comment as I was not there during this contact only those who were there know the answers, people have a warped sense of what a real contact is based on watching to many Hollywood movies.

The Taliban are not going to be visible so we cant shoot them like in the movies they know how to fight, camouflage and conceal themselves and like you said 99% of those offering an opinion weren't there and to be honest I don't care too much for there opinions anyway.

CD

No worries cadre thanks for the reply anyway you are right about the taliban being hard to spot all the soldiers who have served say that.

It just suprised me if you go on youtube and see the unedited video there are a couple of people who claim to be ex NZDF who are doing the most shit talking about the contact and how bad our people were which i did find suprising considering it is a ten minute video and only offers a small snippet of what happened and only shows a handful of the NZDF soldiers that were involved.

They are all doing the i know someone who was there routine and refering to the Kiwi soldier who had his version of what happened printed in the Herald as the truth and there has been people on a NZDF page on facebook talking shit about it as well slagging off the major i told the person to say what they have to say to his face not on face book but my post got deleted.

It really suprises me how people are carrying on you have a patrol where most of the people probably have never been shot at before it would have been their first contact and to make matters worse the senior officer went down early it really shouldn't be suprising if things were chaotic.

Just my five cents worth.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Maybe this will clear things up a bit (when it comes out):
Kiwi commander writing book on 'Battle of Baghak' - National - NZ Herald News
The article also states that "The Military Police investigation is due to report back in the coming weeks."

In the meantime:
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2013/coi-report_baghak_redact_reopen_final.pdf

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pd...rrative_reopen_redact_eaw-comms-version-2.pdf

 

[steve33]

Maybe this will clear things up a bit (when it comes out):
Kiwi commander writing book on 'Battle of Baghak' - National - NZ Herald News
The article also states that "The Military Police investigation is due to report back in the coming weeks."

In the meantime:
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2013/coi-report_baghak_redact_reopen_final.pdf

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pd...rrative_reopen_redact_eaw-comms-version-2.pdf

Thanks for the info it was very interesting some blabber mouths have been going around the internet saying the NZDF tried to cover up the incident but that is certainly not the impression i got reading the report.

There were problems with communications with K1 commander not being briefed on where the other units and their intentions before they entered the fight and as a result that info wasn't passed on to their troops and they went in lacking situational awareness and also K1 entering the contact area and not telling the other units which contributed to the blue on blue.

The top commander getting hit early in the fight then another commander who had the most situational awareness having to look after him taking him away from the fight as well.

They said the training was not as complex as it needed to be they felt the training focused to much on individual teams rather than a scenario with all the different units working at close to company level and they said in future they need to train up to the level of the most extreme situation they could expect to come across they used the "example train high operate low"

Very good report and certainly things the army can correct.

There was no lack of fighting spirit from the troops involved they didn't try to avoid the fight which is a positive and briefing commanders better before they go in is easy enough to fix and just reinforcing to units that when they enter a contact area they should immediatley attempt to let other units know where they are and their intentions.

Just my 5 cents worth.

 

[ngatimozart]

It appears that the NZG is considering putting its defence cuts on hold because of they could have negative consequences for operations. Defence cuts may be put on hold - Jonathan Coleman... | Stuff.co.nz. Well we could have told them that three years ago before they went rip, shit and bust ordering cuts. However the proof of the pudding is in the eating and one will have to wonder what this decision will entail. I would not be surprised to see re-equipment decisions held off yet again which will ultimately involve another loss of capability.

 

[CJohn]

It appears that the NZG is considering putting its defence cuts on hold because of they could have negative consequences for operations. Defence cuts may be put on hold - Jonathan Coleman... | Stuff.co.nz. Well we could have told them that three years ago before they went rip, shit and bust ordering cuts. However the proof of the pudding is in the eating and one will have to wonder what this decision will entail. I would not be surprised to see re-equipment decisions held off yet again which will ultimately involve another loss of capability.

I have to say, that policy was one of the most ill concieved the Government ever thought up, sort of rearanging the deck chairs on the titanic.
Let's hope putting things on hold for one or two years is 'pollie' speak for let's hope the whole idea slowly fades away...

 

[40 deg south]

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/soi-2013.pdf

I was looking at the latest MinDef Statement of Intent (link above) and came across reference to something called the Defence Mid-point Rebalancing Review, a process I had not previously heard of.

Googling this phrase threw up a speech by the Minister of Defence to the Defence Industry Association in March (below).
Speech to Defence Industry Association conference - JONATHAN COLEMAN MP for Northcote

Of particular interest are his comments near the end, as follows.

"So now is an appropriate time to assess how we’re travelling and to have officials start some groundwork for what ultimately will be a future White Paper.

The officials have been tasked to start a piece of work called the DMRR, or Defence Mid-point Rebalancing Review, which undertakes analysis about long term Defence funding and capability.

This is set in the context that New Zealand’s spending on defence as a percentage of GDP has been steadily declining since the 1990’s when it was at 2 per cent of GDP to where it currently is hovering at about 1 per cent of GDP.

What understandably worries Defence planners is the current forecast for the defence budget for the next decade is a horizontal flat line. They are required to assume a fixed defence appropriation.

And that presents some obvious challenges.

On a fixed appropriation, the defence budget would eventually go into an operating deficit .

In reality I don’t think a flat line defence budget for the next ten years is a realistic option.

Whilst the savings and reforms have been excellent, you also need to guard against a rubicon moment where the money becomes so tight our defence strategy and capability are compromised.

So it is sensible for the DMRR process to be undertaken.

Cabinet has directed officials to analyse different levels of funding tracks for the future, and assess what level of military capability and equipment you get with each funding track.

It’s important to get the balance right.

I am at pains to say the DMRR is analytical work.

We will consider the results with an open mind. It is groundwork so that we’re well prepared for the next Defence White Paper anticipated in 2015.

The DMRR is likely to be reported back to the government later this year."

 

[KiwiRob]

Beat me with a rolled up newspaper if I'm wrong but this sounds somewhat positive for the NZDF.:whip

 

[ngatimozart]

Beat me with a rolled up newspaper if I'm wrong but this sounds somewhat positive for the NZDF.:whip

There are some ex army dudes on here who'd be into that Me being ex navy would prefer a cat :whip & also ex air force wouldn't like the idea at all because it might disturb the brylcreamed hair do.

This from a politician who in a speech in the UK blathered on how good the policy of capping Vote: NZDF at 1% GDP was, along with enforcing savings targets upon NZDF within that 1%. So unless he has had a NZDF inspire religous epiphany I don't give the idea going full distance much credence.

 

[MrConservative]

Here is the section from the London speech given by Dr Coleman pertaining to funding levels.

The speech would have been initially drafted by the principal ministerial Defence Advisor with input from the NZDF Comms and MinDef as is the usual practice before been presented to the DefMin. Also because it is a platform speech in a major international setting MFAT would have viewed it as well as the 9th floor giving advice and input. Saying that the Minister blathering on is incorrect NG it is the reality of a government having to deal with the context and circumstances of the Quake, GFC, inheriting a previous administrations mismanagement is defence policy as well as big ticket concurrent costs such as interest free student loans, Cullens trains and middle class welfare.

"The challenge is how to keep the capability to conduct such operations in a weakening fiscal environment, with the cost of operating modern capabilities rapidly increasing, and the looming need to replace major land and air assets in the 2020s.

For New Zealand, the question is not so much about cutting defence spending to support the government’s fiscal position, but rather containing rapidly rising costs within a tight budget.

That budget has been around 1% of GDP in recent years, which is about right for our circumstances,

Facing rising costs, one option would have been to retreat into isolationism. To concern ourselves only with our near region, and our modest immediate security needs.

This is not the approach we chose. Direct security requirements do not drive our defence policy. Defence is part of our identity as an involved and active member of the international community.

Not only that, but growing uncertainty is the defining feature of our strategic environment. In this context it seems imprudent to make dramatic capability or funding cuts that we might later regret.

With our relatively modest capability base, there is also little scope to reduce depth without affecting breadth of capability.

To illustrate this point, in 2001, a previous government disbanded our air combat force, which consisted of one squadron of Skyhawks, and a training squadron.

Instead, we are holding defence funding constant, while carefully prioritising our capability plan, and transferring substantial resources from the middle and back of defence to our deployable capabilities.

This approach is allowing us to maintain our breadth of capabilities."

The full speech is here: New Zealand Defence force capability in an era of tightening budgets - JONATHAN COLEMAN MP for Northcote

The reality is Defence will not get funding increases other than top ups to match actual GDP growth to maintain the current 1% level, until the countries fiscal books are in surplus or at least the GDP to Debt ratio is somewhat healthy and the CHC rebuild is bedded down. FY16 budget is probably when capital injections for major ticket procurement will begin.

In the meantime we have not cut capability unlike a number of nations. Which ironically enough will benefit us.

 

[40 deg south]

The reality is Defence will not get funding increases other than top ups to match actual GDP growth to maintain the current 1% level, until the countries fiscal books are in surplus or at least the GDP to Debt ratio is somewhat healthy and the CHC rebuild is bedded down. FY16 budget is probably when capital injections for major ticket procurement will begin.

The key (excuse pun) objective of this government has been to get the budget back into surplus in the 2014/15 financial year. As long as Treasury keeps an iron grip on new spending and there are no external shocks, that target wll be achieved. Until then, there is nil prospect of any significant new spending on defence. Or anything else.

Coleman's London speech clearly indicates that he recognises that cost-cutting has been taken as far as it can go, and the only way to maintain capacity is to increase the budget. That is a significant statement to make to an international audience, and it is good that Coleman recognises this.

I suspect the Mid-Point Review is being used as a mini-White Paper, to highlight what capacity NZ will have to give up if the budget remains fixed. Or, to look at it another way, how much extra the NZ taxpayer will have to stump up in order to maintain certain capabilities.

This, in turn, indicates that the Minister and/or senior defence officials believe that the funding issue can't wait until 2015. While nothing is certain, I'd say this is a positive sign for NZDF.

 

[ngatimozart]

It appears that NZ is going to be full of top army brass 9th -13th September 2013. There are two concurrent conferences on; the 37th Pacific Armies Management Seminar and the 8th Pacific Armies Chiefs Conference Pacific Armies Chiefs Conference. These involve 27 and 32 countries respective from the Pacific - Indo region. Army Aviation Unit Heads for Korea, Army Brass for New Zealand | Defense News | defensenews.com Has to be good for our army and NZDF to be more involved in these type of arrangements, collegial learning and building relationships.

 

[ngatimozart]

The current NZ Chief of Defence, Lt Gen Rhys Jones is being promoted to civilian. His three year contract is not being renewed. Defence Force head stood down - National - NZ Herald News Apparently the normal NZCDF position is a five year contract but the govt gave him a three year contract in 2011 to implement its cost cutting and during that period it could assess the success or lack thereof depending upon ones pov. It will be noted that a former Labour Defence Minister has taken delight in outing this, but he's not willing to take responsibility for things that happened on his watch Radio New Zealand : News : National : Buck stops with Goff, dead sailor's father says He only likes to take responsibilty for the good stuff, what ever that was. I commented somewhere else that Burton and Goff probably did more damage to NZDF than most foreign enemies could. In days goneby we could've hung them from the nearest yardarm as traitors. But then the paperwork would be horrendous because somebody would have to fill out an environmental impact statement.

 

[MrConservative]

The current NZ Chief of Defence, Lt Gen Rhys Jones is being promoted to civilian. His three year contract is not being renewed. Defence Force head stood down - National - NZ Herald News Apparently the normal NZCDF position is a five year contract but the govt gave him a three year contract in 2011 to implement its cost cutting and during that period it could assess the success or lack thereof depending upon ones pov. It will be noted that a former Labour Defence Minister has taken delight in outing this, but he's not willing to take responsibility for things that happened on his watch Radio New Zealand : News : National : Buck stops with Goff, dead sailor's father says He only likes to take responsibilty for the good stuff, what ever that was. I commented somewhere else that Burton and Goff probably did more damage to NZDF than most foreign enemies could. In days goneby we could've hung them from the nearest yardarm as traitors. But then the paperwork would be horrendous because somebody would have to fill out an environmental impact statement.

It is typically only a 3 year position with the option that the DefMin can advise the GG to extend it for a further period.

Cary Adamson, Neil Anderson, Tony Birks, John Mace, and Euan Jamieson each did the standard 3 year stretch.

Peter Phipps did 2 years and David Crooks did a little less than that.
.
Richard Bolt, Bruce Fergusson, Humpty Teagle and General Jerry the current GG did 4 years.

Dick Webb did 5 years and Len Thornton an extraordinary 6 years during the Vietnam period.

So three years is normal. He had a job to do as he is a Managing General rather than a Fighting General. A managing general was what was needed.

Goff is just being beyond redemption over this. I am sorry but he is becoming pathetic through trying to politicise Defence personnel. Then again he has a track record at this. Why did he not speak out for Cary Adamson back in 2002? Oh that's right Cary gave his 38 years of advice and experience on Defence that was completely ignored by Goff and his Cabinet mates because it did not fit their limited world view.

Anyway it should be interesting who gets the big job. Graeme Lintott and Jack Steer are eligible. Warren Whiting is an old hand as well and also seems to have been around forever. It is all open though.

 

[ngatimozart]

Jack Steer would be good for the job and his name has been mentioned in another forum where I lurk. With regard to the ex naval female rating who complains in the media each time he gets promoted, it is interesting what some ex navy people who knew her have to say about her. People in glass houses as they say. On another note, BRIG Trengrove was not reappointed to Director of Reserves either.

Jonathan Coleman
17 September, 2013
Goff Plays Politics on Defence Safety

Labour is not playing straight on safety in the Defence Force, says Defence Minister, Jonathan Coleman.

“The fact is Labour did nothing to address safety issues in Defence during its time in office.

“Sadly there were 8 accidental deaths in Defence over the past 5 years, and 8 deaths in the 5 years prior to that period. One death is one too many.

“I chose to instigate this review because I felt strongly that the culture of health and safety in defence needed further investigation. The Government is fully committed to implementing the recommendations.

“The CDF’s retirement is completely unrelated to this review.

“Unfortunately Phil Goff is seeking to make political gain on an issue which should be a bipartisan one. All the more unfortunate seeing as Mr Goff never addressed the issue during his time as Minister.”
beehive.govt.nz - Goff Plays Politics on Defence Safety

Now if I was a betting man, which I'm not, I would be pretty sure that the NZ Herald would not print any of the above statement. Maybe I am naive, but I was once told that the media was supposed to give a fair and balanced account. I must've been mistaken, or I must've misheard it when I was drunk on a run ashore, or in the Airmens Club or Cpls club back in the days before NZDF had a drinking problem.

 

[MrConservative]

Jack Steer would be good. They have not had a white shoe since Humpty Teagle. Jack has done the Joint Force Command and VCDF also Lintott who is in Washington has been CAF and iirc the Joint Force Command for a period also. Both popular with the rank and file and huge institutional knowledge to draw on. The only fly in the ointment is the BS modern tick the boxes HR consultant approach in many higher public service appointments these days.

Trengove as a Reservist is time limited to 3 years. In the past their were usually two reservists at Brig rank, but this has changed in recent times from the move to the Army Reserve structure to just one.

 

[RegR]

Warren Whitings a top man and Graeme Lintotts also very good. Both are good men for the ranks, something sorely needed nowadays according to the attrition rates in all three services of late.

Everyone seems to be hung up on these 'safety' issues when maybe some of the blame could be put down to the vast experience leaving the forces in numbers resulting in skill, trade and knowledge fade. You can have all the equipment and procedures in the world but both are useless if you have no one proficient, confident and experienced enough to operate and implement them effectively, safely and with purpose.