NZDF General discussion thread

[t68]

Tod

you can add the DWP o that list too,

Defence Review - Defence White Paper [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Funding

All costs related to the development of the Defence White Paper 2015 will be charged against Vote Defence.

 

[Todjaeger]

Part II

Now, if Vote Defence can be increased to 1.2% GDP in real terms, to put it around NZD$3 bil. that would be an increase of ~NZD$1.2 bil. beyond what current fund appears to be. I could do quite a bit with $1.2 bil. I will try to not make this look like a shopping list. Whether I succeed or not remains to be seen...

One of the things I would seek to do is expand the size of the NZDF, not just in terms of kit, but also personnel. With such a small defence force, that can mean very limited opportunities for personnel to advance, since there are so few slots. This has led to some Kiwis transferring to foreign forces like those of Australia, Canada, or the UK, because there is more room for growth. Expanding the size should lead to more slots at different levels, and therefore more places personnel can advance to. I would also increase the pay and benefits for personnel. This IMO should be done both to make the NZDF more attractive, especially to 'good' people, as well as to retain the experienced personnel it already has. At the same time I feel a change in the exit policy (this should be my last set of policy ideas) which makes it more difficult/less advantageous for personnel to leave the service prior to the end of their service commitment. Right now it seems as though NZDF personnel can leave the service almost as easily as changing jobs, should they find a better offer or position with a new company.

On a related note to expanding the size of the NZDF, I would also seek to increase some of the kit, which would be part of the reason for expanding the number of personnel.

This expansion can be broken down into several areas:

Naval Combat Forces: Expand the force to 4+ GP escorts. I have in mind large GP frigates able to conduct ASW, ASuW, and area air defence, all to a greater degree than the upgraded RNZN frigates will be able to. IMO VLS cells in sufficient quantity to support a number of ESSM-type SAM, as well as an ASROC-like capability, towed sonar arrray, plus AShM would all be required. My rational for 4+, is that for surface vessels the rule of threes applies. At any given time, one vessel will be undergoing some sort of maintenance, repairs, or upgrade, another will be in either a training cycle or recovery from a deployment, with the third either on or available for a deployment. Adding a fourth (or more) vessel into the mix should permit there to be one vessel away on a deployment, with one at home in or local/regional waters available to deploy. A surge capability can also exist at times where the vessel on a training or recovery cycle could also potentially be deployed as well. This should permit at least one, and potentially as many as three frigates to be deployed in the event of some incident or crisis.

My rational behind the level of armament, especially since I feel several things which the RNZN does not have would be required, is based off several limitations of the current and near-future Naval Combat Force. At present and into the near future, the anti-shipping capabilities of the frigates revolve around the 5"/127 mm gun, and the Penguin AShM carried by the new Seasprites. That IMO is insufficient for combating an opposing naval force that has surface vessels armed with AShM and/or anything more than VSHRAAD. The gun does not have over-the-horizon range, and the launching helicopter would likely be within range of any defending SAM's prior to getting within launch range of the Penguin. Adding in AShM could permit the RNZN to engage hostile shipping at much longer ranges than is currently possible. The new Sea Cepter missiles, while better than the old Sea Sparrow, IMO do not have the sort of range needed for anything other than self and very near air defence. With a max range of ~25 km, that does not reach the horizon (~29 km), that means the current frigates would need to be within visual contact of any ships being escorted for them to even fall within the air defence umbrella. With ESSM or a Sea Ceptor version of the CAMM-ER being developed, that would put the engagement range further out to 45+ km, which would be better IMO if the RNZN had to escort other vessels through areas threatened by hostile aircraft and/or AShM. The need for a towed sonar array should be apparent, given significant increase in tension in the areas bordering the SCS and ECS, as well as the dramatic increase in subs or orders for subs in these same areas. The reason behind the VLS and ASROC-like capability is the same. A naval helicopter might carry one or two LWT's, and IIRC the Mk 32 launchers each carry three LWT's, but if there is a hostile sub contact, more torpedoes might be needed in an area quickly.

Naval Patrol Forces: This I would also seek to effect some changes to. As is and has been discussed in the RNZN thread I would eliminate the current IPV's since they add little to current defence capabilities, being too small to really operate well in some of the waters around NZ, yet too large (and requiring too large a crew) to operate as close inshore as apparently desired at times. On a related note, the max crew complement for the IPV's is apparently 36, of those 4 are gov't agency staff and a dozen supernumerary/trainee personnel. Having a 1:9 ratio, or 1:6 ratio without the trainees aboard, coupled with the plan to operate within 24 n miles of the NZ coastline, really makes it seem like the point of the IPV order was for the RNZN to provide a small boat capability to external gov't agencies, as opposed to providing much in terms of service to the RNZN. Also potentially worth noting, the seakeeping abilities of the IPV's are the same as the RAN's ACPB's, yet the intended area of operations for those was along Australia north coast and the northwest shelf, which I understand are usually milder than around many part of NZ, especially the southern portions of South Island.

I would look to expand the Patrol Forces capability up to ~4+ OPV-sized vessels, again to allow for training, refit/repairs, deployment and available for deployment. Me being me, I would look to introduce a newer, more capable design than the current OPV so that they could at least conduct anti-piracy patrols safely. I would also prefer some additional thought and options (like a magazine in the hangar for armed helicopter operations) be built into the design, so that if things really went to custard the OPV's could be modified and then tasked with some of the lower risk escort duties. By modified, I mean fitted with MCM kit, or Sea Ceptor for VSHRAAD, or a towed sonar array and some LWT launchers, etc. I would also likely delete the ice strengthening, since that inclusion in a design seems to really have a negative impact on a number of ship characteristics and I have to question just how much value there is for the RNZN to have three ice-strengthened ships. If things could be arranged, I would also like to then retire/sell the two current OPV's and replace them with the newer, improved OPV.

Aerial Surveillance: For this... Several things need to be improved IMO. The P-3K Orions need to regain an ASW capability, and then need to start rebuilding any/all atrophied skills. This is only for the short term. In the medium to long-term, I believe a two-tiered fixed-wing aerial maritime patrol capability is required. The top tier should be made up of at least 4 P-8 Poseidon's, a 1:1 replacement ratio for the Orions if feasible, and even more than 6 if possible. I have my doubts on that score. I would also advocate for 4-6 second tier MPA, something along the size and capabilities of the C-295MPA, or one of the armed MPA versions of the CN-235. These second tier aircraft could then cover most of the lower level maritime patrol activities which the P-3K Orions have been performing, but also be able to be kitted out to conduct ASW and ASuW operations if needed, either around NZ proper, or forward deployed alongside or in place of some of the P-8 Poseidons. On a side note to this, I would also recommend increasing the number of naval helicopters in service as well. This would allow more to be deployed operationally if/when RNZN vessels are deployed, as well as providing more aerial surveillance in and around NZ proper when operating from a land base.

Air Transport: The fixed-wing component clearly requires replacement, and rather quickly. Absent the release of the air transport review, it is hard to say what would be a good mix. I feel that greater numbers than the current 5+2 are needed, and that modifying civilian jetliners are not an efficient and effective method of airlift, but until more is known on the range/weight/volume requirements...

For rotary-wing airlift... while I am not a particular fan of the NH-90 (I feel that it was put into service before adequate development and prototyping had been done) I do feel that having a force of 8+1, is insufficient. Given the potentially very long supply change to Europe, and unless parts for the Australian MRH90 could be used in NZ NH90's, I would recommend getting an additional helicopter for spares. For lift purposes an 2-4 additional helicopters would seem sensible. I do understand than an expansion of 25%-50% might seem significant, but with so few operational airframes, an accident can cause major drop in capability. As things stand now, a single NH-90 is 12.5% of the NZDF rotary airlift. If HMNZS Canterbury were to deploy with a full helicopter load, that would be half of the NZDF's rotary airlift. With the danger of having some many proverbial eggs in a basket, the notion of getting more eggs appeals to me.

Sealift: I would have the NZDF get as much practice in amphibious operations as possible out of HMNZS Canterbury, then sell or otherwise get her out of RNZN service and replace her with a vessel deliberately designed for sealift and amphibious operations. Something with a well dock, and greater self-defence capabilities from both air and surface threats. Right now that 'A' position 25 mm Bushmaster gun does not provide much in terms of defence. Especially since the lack of a well dock and the restrictions on utilizing the side ramp would require the MRV to be in relatively sheltered/confined waters close to short. The sort of situation where smallcraft could easily close with Canterbury and cause damage. Or potentially land-based weaponry like heavy mortars, artillery, or even some vehicle main guns. As things stand now, the MRV is suitable for deployment on HADR operations, exercises, or amphibious landings in very benign situations. I am not advocating for the NZDF to acquire an opposed amphibious landing capability, but I do feel that the NZDF might be required to engage in amphibious operations in areas where not everyone is particularly friendly.

I have not really touched on Army or land-based capabilities, I will see if I can do that in a future Part III. I have a meeting/debriefing in about 5 hours, and I should really get some sleep beforehand.

 

[MrConservative]

yep I agree 100% with what you are saying about the strategic necessity of the capability and 100% in favor of reinstating it, but reestablishing it will have a profound effects that will shape the CONOPS of the entire NZDF and would require a major shift in thinking from the government.

Its just from a political pov reestablishing a fast jet capability will be counter to the company line on why they dropped the capability in the first place. It would be akin to the AusGov proposing on re-establishing a Asw/Strike carrier capability, I doubt very much even with Chinese actions in the SCS and a resurgent Russia it would hard pressed for any government to propose such a thing.

Whilst the DWP hasn't ben released yet the NZ defence assessment of 2014 gives an indication on where defence may increase capability in the future. It appears that government will only consider things as part of a UN mandate with a “coalitions of the willing” but it may increase its capability higher threat environments.

I do question the assessment of a "direct threat" which conjures waves of troops coming ashore over the beach, but containment or using JFK in the Cuban Missile Crises a "blockade" has serious overtones as well. History will be the judge if they cab "re-orientate within the timeframe needed.

Looking at Conflict Trends section 11i have bolded the relevant paragraph which has implications for the Air Transport review, but also could pave the way forward for a harder hitting RNZAF within a JATF concept, with the caveat that RNZN increases its amphibious shipping and escort capability.

It also appears once legalities of the use of UAV is which may reduce risk of casualties for both pilot and civilians, it may be viewed as a more acceptable option over fast jets in the future. I think come the mid 2020's there may be scope for a joint investigation into these capability as the RAAF may or may not go down this route to replace the Super Hornets in the 2030's. AT-6 Wolverine or Super Tucano should/could be seen as an interim capability until a future study into armed UAV into the future

There is a major revamp of CONOPs going on anyway and becoming more maritime orientated. An air combat capability is an evolution of that pr should be.

Actually I don't think the "missing" RAN carrier equates exactly to the "missing" Kiwi air combat capability. One is a more fundamental gap than the other and in the Kiwi case was based on a different world view of what a defence force should be about imposed by politicians at the time and was the suspension of orthodoxy.

I am not sold on the idea of buying AT-6s. That is not really going to be an efficient pathway to producing pilots flying multi-role aircraft particularly with maritime strike probably being a key skill set in a maturing post 2025 NZ JATF conops.

I think the tech capability will be well developed before the law catches up concerning UCAVs especially autonomous ones. Generally speaking most ACHL theorists believe that autonomous UCAV's do not present a great difficulty provided they do not contravene the Art 41 principle of distinction and that someone is responsible or will take responsibility for it i.e the Nuremberg Principle. However, one of the contentious requirements is that ACHL lawyers want the documentary recording of all UCAV operations as evidential proof. And there are issues over territorial control concepts - involving the notion of proximity or vicinity with the eventual MILT. Neither NZ or Aust Govts will move on that until everything has been signed off as kosher under ACHL.

 

[Todjaeger]

Tod

you can add the DWP o that list too,

Defence Review - Defence White Paper [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Funding

All costs related to the development of the Defence White Paper 2015 will be charged against Vote Defence.

The Defence White Paper, by its very nature is related to defence and therefore is quite sensibly funded through Vote Defence. Now if for some reason it ended up costing tens of millions of dollars to develop, I would question it (or more realistically, the process and accounting used)

With respect to the funding to Support Youth Development at NZD$12.27 mil. this seems to be an activity which would be more appropriate for Education, or perhaps Health, depending on what the desired end goals are. I do not see an issue with utilizing NZDF personnel and bases, as well as national parks and wilderness areas, but this scheme strikes me as something outside of the Defence bailiwick which should be getting funded by another department or ministry. Another fun though with respect to the amount of $12.27 mil. p.a. after about two years equals the cost of a new IPV. After about eight years, it is the cost a new OPV. If one were to amortize the cost of the OPV's over a 30 service life, that works out to ~NZD$6.7 mil. p.a. or just over half what Vote Defence is spending to Support Youth Development, which as I mentioned is entirely separate from what is allocated to support the New Zealand Cadets.

I am all for NZ supporting the development of youth, keeping them fit, healthy, and promoting the development of leadership since that should benefit NZ as a whole. However, unless part of the goal is to also have more of these youth to go into Defence as adults (as seems likely with the Cadets) then the programme, IMO at least, is not a Defence issue, but as mentioned more like an Education or Health issue.

 

[TheRedDwarf]

If there was some sort of joint operation alongside Australia and/or the US, the situation would of course be different, potentially by a great deal. As I had mentioned, larger partner-nations have both greater numbers of forces available, but also a greater range of capabilities within those forces. Many of the capabilities which the NZDF lack, can completely transform a battlefield.

In terms of what has been 'invested' in the NZDF since Timor Leste... I do not think much really has been invested. There have been some measures to retain existing capabilities, or perhaps regenerate a few minor lost capabilities, but little apart from purchasing Canterbury in developing new NZDF capabilities. And there still have been capabilities which have since been let go, due to the cost to retain vs. the likely threat and service needs elsewhere. As an example, Army would have to resort to trashfire outside of a coalition environment for air defence, since the MANPADS have been retired.

While the above was just an example, another which I find much more worrisome is that the RAAF had to deploy a flight or Hornets to NZ for an exercise, so that Kiwi troops could get practice operating with air support. IIRC this was done prior to a deployment of Kiwi troops to Afghanistan, where they would be operating under the umbrella of coalition air support. Without the training (and actual aircraft) the Kiwi troops would have been unable to work with the air support available in Afghanistan safely, and the presence of Kiwi troops would likely have been more a hindrance than help.

What I am concerned about, is as future battlefields becoming more combined-arms and joint-service, the NZDF becomes relegated to little more than a ceremonial presence in future coalitions, because the various Gov'ts do not or refuse to, fund the NZDF to the degree to at least work alongside common partners. Never mind actually having the NZDF kitted out to do some of the roles and tasks needed in the event of a threat to NZ, or Kiwi interested overseas.

Hello all.

I'm not all that sure about the expected etiquette on this forum, and whether replying to an old post is considered inappropriate. However, I will continue nonetheless. There is a minor detail in the quoted post which, to my admittedly limited knowledge, is incorrect; the NZDF (specifically, the Army) have not retired their twelve Mistral MANPADS from active service. In fact these were refurbished relatively recently in 2006 to give them modern radar capability.

:rel

Other than the above minor episode of nitpicking, that is all.

Cheers.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hello all.

I'm not all that sure about the expected etiquette on this forum, and whether replying to an old post is considered inappropriate. However, I will continue nonetheless. There is a minor detail in the quoted post which, to my admittedly limited knowledge, is incorrect; the NZDF (specifically, the Army) have not retired their twelve Mistral MANPADS from active service. In fact these were refurbished relatively recently in 2006 to give them modern radar capability.

:rel

Other than the above minor episode of nitpicking, that is all.

Cheers.

Gidday mate and welcome aboard. If you would like to go to the Introduction thread and introduce yourself. Also I would advise that you read the rules.

That is great that the Mistral are still in service then. There was talk about three or so years ago of the Army getting rid of them as a cost cutting measure.

 

[Cadredave]

Hello all.

I'm not all that sure about the expected etiquette on this forum, and whether replying to an old post is considered inappropriate. However, I will continue nonetheless. There is a minor detail in the quoted post which, to my admittedly limited knowledge, is incorrect; the NZDF (specifically, the Army) have not retired their twelve Mistral MANPADS from active service. In fact these were refurbished relatively recently in 2006 to give them modern radar capability.

:rel

Other than the above minor episode of nitpicking, that is all.

Cheers.

They have been put into long term storage by NZDF at this current point in time a study was meant to be conducted into the feasibility of them remaining or if they fit the current Conops how ever that has been overtaken by other more pressing needs like the restructure and rebuilding of capability in the Land Forces after close to 15 years of continuous Operational service.

Also What I forgot to add to this original post was the following:

Although they were put into long term storage, the TOE as part of the Mistral troop has been disestablished and is currently being used in other areas within Army & the wider NZDF some positions were kept within 16 Fd not all.

 

[RegR]

Hello all.

I'm not all that sure about the expected etiquette on this forum, and whether replying to an old post is considered inappropriate. However, I will continue nonetheless. There is a minor detail in the quoted post which, to my admittedly limited knowledge, is incorrect; the NZDF (specifically, the Army) have not retired their twelve Mistral MANPADS from active service. In fact these were refurbished relatively recently in 2006 to give them modern radar capability.

:rel

Other than the above minor episode of nitpicking, that is all.

Cheers.

2006, that was 10 years ago, not exactly recently. I heard that modern radar capability cueing system was trailer mounted and subsequently rolled and written off and due to cost not replaced. I'm pretty sure the mistrals are still in storage and not in operational use but would be happy to hear otherwise as does seem a rather gaping hole in our force structure otherwise.

Just seen CDs reply, well there you go, mystery solved.

 

[Lucasnz]

2006, that was 10 years ago, not exactly recently. I heard that modern radar capability cueing system was trailer mounted and subsequently rolled and written off and due to cost not replaced. I'm pretty sure the mistrals are still in storage and not in operational use but would be happy to hear otherwise as does seem a rather gaping hole in our force structure otherwise.

Just seen CDs reply, well there you go, mystery solved.

Hadn't heard the Radar System had been written off, though I thought we had purchased 2. I know a few years ago they were trying to sell the Mistral off, but I haven't heard what happened to them. A parliamentary question indicates that defence has no MANPADs and there is no intention to regenerate the capability.

Didn't see CD post before posting this one.

 

[Rob c]

Hadn't heard the Radar System had been written off, though I thought we had purchased 2. I know a few years ago they were trying to sell the Mistral off, but I haven't heard what happened to them. A parliamentary question indicates that defence has no MANPADs and there is no intention to regenerate the capability.

Didn't see CD post before posting this one.

Up until recently the Mistral was listed on the army web site, but it has now been removed, so I think it is safe to assume that it is no longer operational.

 

[TheRedDwarf]

They have been put into long term storage by NZDF at this current point in time a study was meant to be conducted into the feasibility of them remaining or if they fit the current Conops how ever that has been overtaken by other more pressing needs like the restructure and rebuilding of capability in the Land Forces after close to 15 years of continuous Operational service.

Also What I forgot to add to this original post was the following:

Although they were put into long term storage, the TOE as part of the Mistral troop has been disestablished and is currently being used in other areas within Army & the wider NZDF some positions were kept within 16 Fd not all.

That is rather disappointing and, as an above post noted, worrying from a strategic perspective, with the Army completely lacking any ability to provide any operations with low-level AA support.

:cry2

On a related tangent, the ADF is set to replace their RBS 70s with something more modern and networkable by 2020, or thereabouts. They are also set to reintroduce medium-range SAM capability back into their arsenal. Maybe the NZDF could piggyback on the hypothetical MANPAD order, in the interests of "ANZAC" interoperability.

Wishful thinking, perhaps, and not entirely likely wishful thinking either, as a veritable tide of major defense acquisitions are coming up in the near-ish future, as I am sure you are all aware.

 

[Todjaeger]

Part III

Okay, here are some more of my thoughts regarding the NZDF.

Land Forces: In many respects, the Land Forces element seems to have been the 'go to' branch of the NZDF, in terms of being utilized by policymakers over the last 20 years or so. That has been to the gain of Land Forces in some areas, and at some expense as well. As I have mentioned previously on one or more of the NZ themed threads, at one point circa ~2008, some 900 NZDF personnel (more than 10% of total personnel) were deployed on one of ~27 different international operations. A couple of deployments had rather sizable Kiwi contingents (IIRC Afghanistan saw a demi-company sized PRT of ~120 personnel) but a number of these international deployments had only squad-sized deployments, effectively a token Kiwi presence.

It seems that for political/ideological reasons, there was such a large NZ involvement. That does seem to have been scaled back significantly (a good thing IMO), at least in part due to the stress of maintaining so many people on international deployments, at the same time. What I feel still remains to be done, is to refocus the Land Forces back into being a land-based combat force, as opposed to being members of the Blue Helmet Corps international peacekeepers.

With that in mind, I would seek to regain/rebuild some lost capabilities, and change the kit and focus of some others.

With the MANPADS having apparently been put into long term storage, the primary Air Defence capability of the NZDF rests with the RNZN's frigates. I would advocate for regaining/resuming at least a man-portable air defence capability. While the idea that NZDF personnel would never operate overseas without being under the air defence umbrella of an ally is a nice thought, I believe it is naive to assume that will always be true. Especially if an event develops rapidly, and/or there are several concurrent events in differing parts of the world which NZ allies respond to.

I would consider looking seriously at either upgrading the L119 guns to the M119A3 standard, or replacing the 105 mm guns with larger, 155 mm M777A2 guns. With the advances made by other armed forces in terms of weapon guidance, as well as requesting for fire support, the NZ artillery might start to be unable to integrate with allied forces without upgrades to their fire control. The potential appeal of the M777A2 (which is too large/heavy to be hoisted by the NH90's) is that most artillery fire support which would be used by allied forces is centered on 155 mm shells. For the most part, it seems that only parachute/airbourne, mountain and rapid reaction forces use such a lightweight gun. If NZDF artillery were to deploy alongside ADF and US Army/USMC artillery, it could cause supply issues, and/or the fire mission needs might require something more than the L119's could deliver. The M777A2 can fire a round with ~4x the HE of an L119 round, approximately 10 km further. Something to give some fairly serious consideration to.

One of the other areas which I feel really needs serious reconsideration, even more so than the artillery, is the armoured/combat vehicles in Army service. As I understand it, the current NZLAV's were selected to replace the old M113 APC's in Army service, which were problematic during their service in Bosnia. IIRC, part of the reason why the LAV design was selected, was because a wheeled combat vehicle is more mobile and efficient on roads than a tracked vehicle. There was an associated assumption, that future deployments of armour would be done as part of UN/international peacekeeping missions, therefore offroad, cross-country, and rough terrain mobility was not terribly important. Shockingly enough, the reality seems to have been somewhat different. While some NZLAV's did deploy to Afghanistan, I seem to recall Toyota Hiluxes being used in some areas of rough terrain, because the conditions were too rough (and/or narrow) for the NZLAV. Given the conditions in the wider Asia/Pacific region, I do believe that at least a few armoured vehicles are needed with good performance in rough terrain. I would also like there to be at least a few vehicles with greater armour protection. The 'stock' NZLAV is protected to 7.62 x 51 mm NATO AP, the uparmoured kits should raise that further and/or provide increased protection vs. RPG's. Having said that, I am concerned about how well the vehicle would fare, if it were to be engaged with a HMG firing AP rounds, or worse still another armoured vehicle with a cannon. Arguments can also be made about the adequacy of a 25 mm gun as a direct fire support weapon, especially considering the other significant direct fire support weapon, the Javelin, has such a high price tag at USD$78,000+ per missile.

With the increasing tensions in the region, IMO there is an increased chance of direct conflict between nations over various territorial/natural resource claims, and/or conflicts between groups being supported by and acting as proxies for the various claimants. There are also various non-state groups that have their own agendas and can pose a threat. Given the large expanse of water, much of a potential conflict would involve naval and air assets, unsecured islands could provide bases for combatants to operate from, and such locations would need to be secuired for NZDF and/or allied forces to operate from them.

 

[MrConservative]

Okay, here are some more of my thoughts regarding the NZDF.

Land Forces: In many respects, the Land Forces element seems to have been the 'go to' branch of the NZDF, in terms of being utilized by policymakers over the last 20 years or so. That has been to the gain of Land Forces in some areas, and at some expense as well. As I have mentioned previously on one or more of the NZ themed threads, at one point circa ~2008, some 900 NZDF personnel (more than 10% of total personnel) were deployed on one of ~27 different international operations. A couple of deployments had rather sizable Kiwi contingents (IIRC Afghanistan saw a demi-company sized PRT of ~120 personnel) but a number of these international deployments had only squad-sized deployments, effectively a token Kiwi presence.

It seems that for political/ideological reasons, there was such a large NZ involvement. That does seem to have been scaled back significantly (a good thing IMO), at least in part due to the stress of maintaining so many people on international deployments, at the same time. What I feel still remains to be done, is to refocus the Land Forces back into being a land-based combat force, as opposed to being members of the Blue Helmet Corps international peacekeepers.

I would cynically add personal reasons to political and ideological.

Lots of blue hat activity prior to leaving ones Premiership is always a good post-political career move. With the ultimate sinecure not too far away now.

 

[TheRedDwarf]

If anyone here has the time, could they help find an official article (online or otherwise) on the Mistrals retirement by the NZDF, if such an article exists, and link or name it in a reply? I am currently editing the NZ Army Wikipedia page section on the Mistral so this would be much appreciated

Cheers.

 

[MrConservative]

With respect to the funding to Support Youth Development at NZD$12.27 mil. this seems to be an activity which would be more appropriate for Education, or perhaps Health, depending on what the desired end goals are. I do not see an issue with utilizing NZDF personnel and bases, as well as national parks and wilderness areas, but this scheme strikes me as something outside of the Defence bailiwick which should be getting funded by another department or ministry. Another fun though with respect to the amount of $12.27 mil. p.a. after about two years equals the cost of a new IPV. After about eight years, it is the cost a new OPV. If one were to amortize the cost of the OPV's over a 30 service life, that works out to ~NZD$6.7 mil. p.a. or just over half what Vote Defence is spending to Support Youth Development, which as I mentioned is entirely separate from what is allocated to support the New Zealand Cadets.

I am all for NZ supporting the development of youth, keeping them fit, healthy, and promoting the development of leadership since that should benefit NZ as a whole. However, unless part of the goal is to also have more of these youth to go into Defence as adults (as seems likely with the Cadets) then the programme, IMO at least, is not a Defence issue, but as mentioned more like an Education or Health issue.

It is outside the Defence remit but what they do with it works.

Defence gets funded some of that money through a redirection from MSD to their budget to run the short term Limited Service Volunteers a training programme for youths from challenging backgrounds. This will be reduced from 1200 a year through to 800 per year fiscal 2016/17- which is pretty dumb as I think it is a great tax payer spend as the success rates are very good. Better results than others.

The Army can do more to help these young people in a couple of months with a traditional military approach better than the annual hundreds of millions the bloody wishy washy do gooders in other departments and contracted social service providers waste each year. There is so much churn in the community sector you could in fact fund a couple of great defence forces out of it.

So called 'community sector' and 'social support' contracted suppliers are leeches of the public purse who never solve problems or really want to solve problems and want even more money thrown at them to 'solve' the same bloody problems that they have never solved for 30 odd years. It is an industry with many of those in the community sector on 100K salaries.

The $12.3m spent on 1200 odd high risk young guys and gals is worth it. A year in the big house costs the taxpayer $96000 and $485,000 per serious crash and $27,500 per minor crash from serious accidents with a similar cost stemming from acts of violence. The 16-24 target group for the LSV's are most likely to be injured, jailed or out of work or often all 3 during that timeframe. It takes the irresponsible, gives them purpose and self esteem, routines and a glimpse of what is possible.

Frankly, they will take far more notice of a 40 year old NCO than some gender neutral lefty community worker and her dangly earrings.

Cheers, MrC

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Didnt those L119 feild guns get such a targeting upgrade with LINAPS a while back?

 

[Todjaeger]

Didnt those L119 feild guns get such a targeting upgrade with LINAPS a while back?

Honestly not sure, perhaps CD could comment? IIRC the M119A3 version in use by the US was developed in 2013, and incorporates some digital targeting systems adapted from those developed for the M777A2.

 

[Cadredave]

That is rather disappointing and, as an above post noted, worrying from a strategic perspective, with the Army completely lacking any ability to provide any operations with low-level AA support.

You're actually reading too much into my post at no stage am I worried about a perceived lack of strategic perspective, Army has got fundamentally more things to worry about than if we need or dont need Mistral. 15 Years of continuous Operations has drained Army of any Combined Arms training above Company Group level, we have not had a Battalion + level conventional exercise since before East Timor 1 and that in my mind needs rectifying way before we relearn how to shoot down aircraft with mistral.

CD

 

[Cadredave]

Didn't those L119 field guns get such a targeting upgrade with LINAPS a while back?

KP69

Project began in 2013 with the testing and eventual purchase of a GNAPS system and you are correct the system brought was LINAPS it is in service throughout NATO, and ABCA countries. The specific system being bought for 16 Fd Regt is the Laser Inertial Artillery Pointing System (LINAPS) produced by SELEX-ES.

this was one project to getting 16 Fd Regt upgraded and training for the role they were established for as part of the fires team in stead of being used as dismounted infantry for one rotation in Afghan & Timor/Solomon Islands.

 

[TheRedDwarf]

You're actually reading too much into my post at no stage am I worried about a perceived lack of strategic perspective, Army has got fundamentally more things to worry about than if we need or dont need Mistral. 15 Years of continuous Operations has drained Army of any Combined Arms training above Company Group level, we have not had a Battalion + level conventional exercise since before East Timor 1 and that in my mind needs rectifying way before we relearn how to shoot down aircraft with mistral.

CD

With that comment I made in my previous post about the Army's lack of MANPADs, I wasn't actually referring to your post. I was expanding upon RegR's reply to my post (Specifically "but would be happy to hear otherwise as does seem a rather gaping hole in our force structure otherwise. ") while expressing my own concerns about the matter.

So, when I said in my post"and, as an above post noted, ", I was referring another user's comment, not yours.

Apologies for the confusion.