NZDF General discussion thread

[MrConservative]

Also the coming election is not a a foregone conclusion and sorry to rain on your parade Mr C, but if Labour do win the Treasury Benches then we'll see another lurch in defence policy and decline in defence capability. They will attempt to get rid of the frigates. They will can the ASW upgrades for the P3K2. That's their basic policy & nothings changed in their defence outlook since they were last in government. If the Greens retain or increase on their current number of MPs then they will have a major say in any coalition arrangement. The Kiwi Greens do not like defence. Sometimes I feel they like oil companies more.

Labour are only taking votes off the Greens and as a voting block not making traction. The Greens are trending down to 8% and Labour will not crack 35% on a good day. Winston does not get the 5% threshold this time and their is a chance that Labour winning back the North from Bill Hatfield his Mana Party is goneburgers. Colin Craigs Conservatives will win East Coast Bays if McCully gets shown the door or goes onto the list. With his 4% of the vote - made up of the Christians and the Muldoonists tired of a failing Winston. Act will win Espom again with the new candidate. Dunne to scrap home in Ohariu by 1000 votes, Maori Party to stay with the Nats and bring 3 seats in play and the "its the economy stupid" and "Vote Labour and get the Greens" mantra from the 9th floor will mean that Key will still gain more votes than Labour - Greens combined upwards of 45% and possibly 48% if they have a strong campaign soaking up soft centrist votes scared of the Greens. Key needs a 47.5% block to win and will romp home.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

I don't think Winston is that defence friendly. My thought is typical Winston - all smoke and mirrors. He was dead against the third (& 4th) ANZAC frigate purchase. IMHO whilst he's been in parliament during the MMP period I cannot personally recall him doing anything positive for NZDF. Having said that, yes Winston may end up being the king maker (again) and for the current govt to stay in, he needs to reach an agreement with National (politically that's the best option for NZDF). He knows that and his price will be high whilst he'll drag it out playing National off against Labour until he gets what he wants. I think he is the only real choice for National as a coalition partner, but if that happens whether the partnership survives a full term would be another story. IMHO politically the poor scenario for NZDF is a Labour - Greens govt by Xmas 2014.

I find the foreign affairs and defence budget comity to be quite annoying at present and I really hope that Winston could not improve on that annoyance. In aggregate, I may be wrong. I think it interesting to note that defence policy may be failing at present. I really don't see how our military can be peace keepers, deploy over seas, and maintain readiness during large events like the rugby World Cup with the numbers and budget they have. But I'm sure our military will do it in any case. In all I don't see how the military can grow to meet the current defence policies with out a 3.4 billion defence budget. And all this talk about moving numbers from the back office to frontline capabilities seems to look great on the surface. But from news reports over the last few years about military deaths. They seem to show the cracks in our training and mentoring of new recruits. I really do think Winston could provide a more robust debate over the current, you cut this, morale was that, labour vs national debate.

 

[Cadredave]

I find the foreign affairs and defence budget comity to be quite annoying at present and I really hope that Winston could not improve on that annoyance.

Defence and Foreign Affairs are joined at the hip you cant separate the two ive dealt with a few from that department and have nothing but the highest respect for them good people stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Winston is over rated and cares nothing for us he's a Politian first and foremost Defence is easy to beat the opposition with and to score easy points with out delivering to much proof to back his claims,

I really don't see how our military can be peace keepers, deploy over seas, and maintain readiness during large events like the rugby World Cup with the numbers and budget they have.

Lets get one thing absolutely clear NZDF are warfighters first and foremost Peacekeeping is a skill set of one of the many roles we now do daily read up on the three block war concept it might enlighten you.

But from news reports over the last few years about military deaths. They seem to show the cracks in our training and mentoring of new recruits.

Just what do you expect from soldiers serving in an Operational theatre like Afghanistan to all go over safely drink cokes and sing kumbyeya and all come back safely as well? you need a reality check soldier's die in combat and or in combat zones it our job? bad things happen and you must be one of the misinformed few who think NZDF is only there for Peace Keeping.

Roles change in a combat zone like Afghan its one of the most fluid Operational Theatres I have ever been involved with. Those 10 deaths were not attributed to a lack of training or even remotely anything to do with basic training for crying out loud.

 

[Volkodav]

I could be wrong Dave but I was under the impression he was referring to training accidents, haven't there been a few probably avoidable incidents back home in the last several years?

Something I find annoying about this moving uniformed personnel from the tail to the teeth is the effect it has on sustainment. The blokes in the tail do very necessary work supporting those at the sharp end and importantly also support their equipment. Send them upfront and the military lose all their deep leave sustainment skills and experience and they also erode the recruiting pool that the contractors who replace the bloke in the tail used to draw on. If the services don't grow trained, qualified and competent maintainers etc where does the government think industry will get their next generation of workers from?

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Firstly it was tacky of me to refer to the fallen in a clumsy way. And secondly I was trying to high light some budget short falls all be it clumsily. I could never knock New Zealand military doctrine or the people who perform it. I apologise to the max. As suggested I read some online articles about "three block wars". I couldn't help but notice that some descriptions are not homogeneous through out new Zealand's allies. And there in lyres my main gripe with defence deployments. To use a rugby analogy I like the way it turns locals into a 16 defender. But our allies mistakes over reconstruction and later economic reconstruction over shadows the new Zealand militaries good work. I think it to be unique and should be allowed to continue. How long for is another mater. A mater that deserves a more robust debate than the one that comes out of the debating chamber currently.

 

[RegR]

Question, someone out there should know, but why does the current CDF(army) wear a SAS coloured beret while the rest of the army wears rifle green? If they are SAS then I suppose all well and good although I believed you adopted the dress of your current unit on posting and somehow I doubt the majority of HQNZDF fits into this tier(literally).

I have noticed the last 2 have done this, didn't notice before but TBH wasn't actually taking notice. Is it just to stand out or is there an actual reason as back in the day was it not these guys idea to go 'one army' in the first place and abolish individual coloured corp berets.

Just seems odd to me.

 

[Cadredave]

Question, someone out there should know, but why does the current CDF(army) wear a SAS coloured beret while the rest of the army wears rifle green? If they are SAS then I suppose all well and good although I believed you adopted the dress of your current unit on posting and somehow I doubt the majority of HQNZDF fits into this tier(literally).

I have noticed the last 2 have done this, didn't notice before but TBH wasn't actually taking notice. Is it just to stand out or is there an actual reason as back in the day was it not these guys idea to go 'one army' in the first place and abolish individual coloured corp berets.

Just seems odd to me.

Short answer Reg NZSAS have there own Corps that's why they are allowed to wear the SAS beret they were the only Unit exempt the one beret policy for obvious reasons, The one beret policy was nothing more than a budget cut back dressed up to be something else.

 

[Volkodav]

Short answer Reg NZSAS have there own Corps that's why they are allowed to wear the SAS beret they were the only Unit exempt the one beret policy for obvious reasons, The one beret policy was nothing more than a budget cut back dressed up to be something else.

At least berets weren't banned altogether under the excuse of preventing skin cancer, SASR was exempt as it is well documented that they are immune to UV radiation. Reversed now, sort of, with troops being able to purchase their own now, or so I believe.

 

[Cadredave]

At least berets weren't banned altogether under the excuse of preventing skin cancer, SASR was exempt as it is well documented that they are immune to UV radiation. Reversed now, sort of, with troops being able to purchase their own now, or so I believe.

Seems both NZSAS & SASR are immune to UV radiation well the rest of us did come very close to losing the Beret fortunately some one stood their ground on this issue.

CD

 

[40 deg south]

2014 Acquisitions

We now have an election date (20 Sept) and convention is that there will be no major new spending decisions in the months immediately before the poll. That set me thinking about what acquisition activities we are likely to see this year.

Stuff already ordered won't be affected. This would include:

- First T6 Texans Nov 2014
- Recycled Seasprites Jan 2015?
- Final NH90 - Sept 2014 (although this one keeps getting pushed back)
- ANZAC platform systems upgrade part 2
- New MAN trucks
- any others?

What about pending decisions that could be affected? Off the top of my head:
- RFP for Endeavour replacement (tanker/logistics)
- RFP for Littoral Operations Support Capability (Manawanui replacement)
- Next stage of the ANZAC upgrade, presumably covering the sensors and weapons
- Strategic Bearer satellite comms (tender issued Dec 2013)
- Steyr replacement

I'd say the first of these two will definitely be after the election - the latter three could possibly squeak through beforehand.

What have I missed?

Finally, the internet has plenty of sites where people argue about politics - this isn't one of them!

 

[RegR]

Short answer Reg NZSAS have there own Corps that's why they are allowed to wear the SAS beret they were the only Unit exempt the one beret policy for obvious reasons, The one beret policy was nothing more than a budget cut back dressed up to be something else.

Oh have no problems with SAS wearing the sand coloured beret as I feel they have earnt the right + not as if they do it often anyway was just wondering why CDF does as he is not directly part of that unit. Even if he was an ex CO of said unit, shouldn't he now in his new role wear what the main bulk of the army wears as it was their idea in the first place to go one beret, just seems hypocritical. Wouldn't it be like any other per posting out of the unit and wearing their new corps uniform unless he is trying to say HQNZDF is part of NZSAS?

I know officers ironically like to stand out but just thought maybe there is a formal reason behind his role being the only one outside SAS able to wear their cloloured beret.

 

[Cadredave]

Oh have no problems with SAS wearing the sand coloured beret as I feel they have earnt the right + not as if they do it often anyway was just wondering why CDF does as he is not directly part of that unit. Even if he was an ex CO of said unit, shouldn't he now in his new role wear what the main bulk of the army wears as it was their idea in the first place to go one beret, just seems hypocritical. Wouldn't it be like any other per posting out of the unit and wearing their new corps uniform unless he is trying to say HQNZDF is part of NZSAS?

I know officers ironically like to stand out but just thought maybe there is a formal reason behind his role being the only one outside SAS able to wear their cloloured beret.

Short answer Reg no his Corps is 1NZSAS therefore he wears that beret for ever, all senior officer's who came from the regular Army wear the standard issue beret just like the last CDF

 

[kiwipatriot]

2014 Acquisitions

We now have an election date (20 Sept) and convention is that there will be no major new spending decisions in the months immediately before the poll. That set me thinking about what acquisition activities we are likely to see this year.

Stuff already ordered won't be affected. This would include:

- First T6 Texans Nov 2014
- Recycled Seasprites Jan 2015?
- Final NH90 - Sept 2014 (although this one keeps getting pushed back)
- ANZAC platform systems upgrade part 2
- New MAN trucks
- any others?

What about pending decisions that could be affected? Off the top of my head:
- RFP for Endeavour replacement (tanker/logistics)
- RFP for Littoral Operations Support Capability (Manawanui replacement)
- Next stage of the ANZAC upgrade, presumably covering the sensors and weapons
- Strategic Bearer satellite comms (tender issued Dec 2013)
- Steyr replacement

I'd say the first of these two will definitely be after the election - the latter three could possibly squeak through beforehand.

What have I missed?

Finally, the internet has plenty of sites where people argue about politics - this isn't one of them!

I read on Nz Artillery Association site we are getting a upgrade to our L119 Howizters , their fire control and targeting system to be modernised called LINAPS? or lazer inertial pointing system, that could be affected. Also mentioned in the Army site were upgrades to the Lav 3 in mobility, storage,ect

 

[ngatimozart]

2014 Acquisitions

We now have an election date (20 Sept) and convention is that there will be no major new spending decisions in the months immediately before the poll. That set me thinking about what acquisition activities we are likely to see this year.

Stuff already ordered won't be affected. This would include:

- First T6 Texans Nov 2014
- Recycled Seasprites Jan 2015?
- Final NH90 - Sept 2014 (although this one keeps getting pushed back)
- ANZAC platform systems upgrade part 2
- New MAN trucks
- any others?

What about pending decisions that could be affected? Off the top of my head:
- RFP for Endeavour replacement (tanker/logistics)
- RFP for Littoral Operations Support Capability (Manawanui replacement)
- Next stage of the ANZAC upgrade, presumably covering the sensors and weapons
- Strategic Bearer satellite comms (tender issued Dec 2013)
- Steyr replacement

I'd say the first of these two will definitely be after the election - the latter three could possibly squeak through beforehand.

What have I missed?

Finally, the internet has plenty of sites where people argue about politics - this isn't one of them!

I think if the treasury benches change occupancy after the election there is little, if anything, in that list that should create political issues. I think if Goff was made Minister of Defence then we do have a problem, but apart from that I can't see anything that could be problematic. If the incumbents stay in then I hope we keep our current minister because he seems to listen, learned a lot and willing to bat for NZDF.

 

[MrConservative]

I think if the treasury benches change occupancy after the election there is little, if anything, in that list that should create political issues. I think if Goff was made Minister of Defence then we do have a problem, but apart from that I can't see anything that could be problematic. If the incumbents stay in then I hope we keep our current minister because he seems to listen, learned a lot and willing to bat for NZDF.

Jono is doing a good solid job. I would like him to stay on in Defence as he has been a quick study. One advantage he has had that no other DefMin has had in recent years is that he is Bill English's Associate Minister in Finance. However, with the retirement of Tony Ryall in Health, Jono with his Medical background and prior Associate Health Minister role he is a front runner for that huge portfolio and indeed front bench, in which he is destined.

 

[kiwipatriot]

That they can hold their territory? Against whom? NZ is so far away from everything that it is definitely under the top 10 of the less threatened countries on earth.

I think we had an interesting thread about wether NZ should get back fighter jets and for what price.

BTW, if anybody overhelms your fighters then (If you purchase some) and lands troops you are doomed.

Modern equipment is also a bit over the top.
The artillery? Easy prey for every enemy with a countable counterfire capability.
Your AA? 12x Mistral are not what I would call a SAM shield.
The 2 ANZACs. Also not a top ship anymore (If they have ever been one) without major modernization.
Your AT? 24x Javelin, despite being modern, are just a very low number.

And that is just the main factor. Numbers.
For sure for Oceania standards it is ok, but OCeania is for the most demilitarised region in the world with only two other countries possessing armed forces worth the name (Indonesia and Australia) and both are stronger than NZ.

Anzacs not a top ship? they were based on the best design available in the late ninetys, and are barely thirteen years old now , currently they are being upgraded,most of the navys ships are less than 8 years old and have purchased the british navys brand new Sea Cepter area defence missile system, only us and the brits have them being fitted at present, also upgrades to all other systems too underway so do your research. And five of our ships including anzacs carry helis armed with maverick missiles As for Indonesia, there fighters are older than the aussies and there military while large is underfunded and lacks amphibious ships, Singapore and Malysia on the other hand .have a very credible combined defence force, tens of thousands of troops EACH, latest fighters and tanks,apcs ect, subs and frigates,corvettes. Phillipines and and Veitnam as well are currently spending billions on defence due to china's increased presence and dispute over islands.

 

[kiwipatriot]

I think if the treasury benches change occupancy after the election there is little, if anything, in that list that should create political issues. I think if Goff was made Minister of Defence then we do have a problem, but apart from that I can't see anything that could be problematic. If the incumbents stay in then I hope we keep our current minister because he seems to listen, learned a lot and willing to bat for NZDF.

L119 howitzers, though just checked, are currently being fitted with brand new lazer guidance system so wont cancel that, Lav 3 upgrades still in the pipeline.Upgrades to Navy Missile defence system though already agreed on with BRITISH NAVY

 

[Bonza]

Anzacs not a top ship? they were based on the best design available in the late ninetys, and are barely thirteen years old now , currently they are being upgraded,most of the navys ships are less than 8 years old and have purchased the british navys brand new Sea Cepter area defence missile system, only us and the brits have them being fitted at present, also upgrades to all other systems too underway so do your research. And five of our ships including anzacs carry helis armed with maverick missiles As for Indonesia, there fighters are older than the aussies and there military while large is underfunded and lacks amphibious ships, Singapore and Malysia on the other hand .have a very credible combined defence force, tens of thousands of troops EACH, latest fighters and tanks,apcs ect, subs and frigates,corvettes. Phillipines and and Veitnam as well are currently spending billions on defence due to china's increased presence and dispute over islands.

The ANZAC class is not a top of the line vessel, particularly (and I don't mean for you to take this personally) the NZ vessels. In Australian terms I've heard them referred to as "armed yachts" by serving members, put it that way... if you go back and do some reading on the origins of the ANZAC project you'll see there was a requirement for a high-end warship and a requirement for a less capable patrol frigate. What the ANZAC ended up being was a patrol frigate with some warship-type capabilities included. So no, they're not "top ships", and I think you'd benefit from reading up on these capabilities you're discussing as there's plenty for you to learn, both in here and through other sources. And please don't start preaching at people to "do some research" when you're clearly in need of that yourself. Listen to the blues in here, a blue handle means a military or defence industry professional and I doubt they're going to take kindly to your attitude.

Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

Anzacs not a top ship? they were based on the best design available in the late ninetys, and are barely thirteen years old now , currently they are being upgraded,most of the navys ships are less than 8 years old and have purchased the british navys brand new Sea Cepter area defence missile system, only us and the brits have them being fitted at present, also upgrades to all other systems too underway so do your research. And five of our ships including anzacs carry helis armed with maverick missiles As for Indonesia, there fighters are older than the aussies and there military while large is underfunded and lacks amphibious ships, Singapore and Malysia on the other hand .have a very credible combined defence force, tens of thousands of troops EACH, latest fighters and tanks,apcs ect, subs and frigates,corvettes. Phillipines and and Veitnam as well are currently spending billions on defence due to china's increased presence and dispute over islands.

ANZACs, especially the RNZN two, were never a top of the range ship and were overly expensive for what we got. IMHO we would've been better buying the F100 frigates straight from Spain, or the RN Type 23. The ANZACs are top heavy and the Kiwi ones under armed. Now I am specifically talking about the RNZN ships. They do not have ASuW missiles such as Harpoon. They depend on the helo for ASW and ASuW prosecution so if the helo goes u/s or gets shot down then they are stuffed. Both the Maverick and the Penguin require the helo to go within the enemies SAM umbrella in order to launch the missile. Both the Maverick and Penguin are short ranged ASuW missiles.

Numbers have a quality of their own and when they are low, as in NZs case, then they are crucial, very crucial. For the RNZN combat force to work properly three frigates are needed: one fully operational, one in training and / or light maintenance and one refit / full maintenance. The rule of threes. With two frigates we don't have that. Sea Ceptor is a short range missile and doesn't have the range of ESSM. However it is better than the Sea Sparrow it is replacing in the RNZN and is able to attack fast surface craft which ESSM cannot do at the moment. The British Navy is known as the Royal Navy (RN) and nothing else.

Finally, Waylander is a very highly respected defence professional in this forum and has forgotten more about defence than many of us will ever know. He is treated with the respect he deserves and is entitled too. His comments in the post you quoted are very valid and correct.

 

[Bonza]

Sea Ceptor is a short range missile and doesn't have the range of ESSM. However it is better than the Sea Sparrow it is replacing in the RNZN and is able to attack fast surface craft which ESSM cannot do at the moment.

One small quibble, I believe ESSM does indeed have anti-surface capabilities - I've seen a picture provided by Abe of a small surface target being absolutely wrecked by one such missile. Other than that, agree with everything you've said.