NZDF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

To be honest I don’t see how the RNZAF would gain much. The cost of the aircraft will be the cost of the aircraft. The cost of the spares will be the cost of the spares. Its probable you could have a more efficient package without having to double up on widget A, and you may get some savings as a result but it’s not likely to be huge when compared to whole program costs.

I imagine where there could be greater value would be shifting training to a common place with Australia and achieving greater efficiency. This could achieve a higher operational output from the RNZAF fleet, and may require less training infrastructure and personnel in NZ, but would the government actually accept this offshoring? What is the cost of dislocating people overseas for the training period (travel, accomodation, allowances?) Maybe it could allow the RNZAF to dispense of a simulator (for example) but does this counter the negatives to not having one available in NZ?

The other areas that spring to mind would be staffing (HQ roles) and maybe things like EW programming.

There's one big issue and that's called sovereignty, which most NZG are pretty keen on (& rightly so) especially Labour led ones. They are joined at the hip with the fiction of an independent foreign policy. I call it a fiction because our, and other small to medium sized powers such as Australia, foreign policy is never independent because we are always in the end reacting to the great powers and their actions in playing the great game.

 

[ddxx]

There's one big issue and that's called sovereignty, which most NZG are pretty keen on (& rightly so) especially Labour led ones. They are joined at the hip with the fiction of an independent foreign policy. I call it a fiction because our, and other small to medium sized powers such as Australia, foreign policy is never independent because we are always in the end reacting to the great powers and their actions in playing the great game.

I agree in that’s the only major hurdle to jump in regards to closer, more effective and mutually beneficial relations.

It’s worth noting that the successful agreements currently in place between Australia and New Zealand, such as CER, were and are world leading. We both sat down and thought outside of the box for mutual gain.

Working towards a closer relationship need not mean the loss or reduction of our unique identities - but rather, it would naturally seek to offer a third identity which coexists with, and unites our two nations for mutual benefit.

Collectively, Australia and New Zealand have the 10th largest GDP, and *the* largest EEZ in the world.

Through collective size comes influence, opportunities and economies of scale not able to be fully exploited alone. The key being, mutual respect, and a good dose of both creativity and pragmatism.

 

[Kiwigov]

From my old and decrepit memory bank, the answer is yes you are right about this. and the M41's were second hand at the time and not new as were the extra mk5 Centurions we got in the 60's to add to the 3 Mk3's we already had that were procured as training tanks, so that our guys could be used in pom Centurions in Korea. I don't know if that ever happened.

Fair point, I am completely wrong re the respective timings - NZ got 10 M41s in late 1960, well over a decade before the Aust decision to buy Leopard 1s. So at the time the M41s were the best available option, given large US stocks and the experience of operating the Centurions

 

[Sierra Mike]

Fair point, I am completely wrong re the respective timings - NZ got 10 M41s in late 1960, well over a decade before the Aust decision to buy Leopard 1s. So at the time the M41s were the best available option, given large US stocks and the experience of operating the Centurions

No, not a decade.

Australian procurement activities for what became AS1 Leopard started in 1971 when a request for trials vehicles from Germany (Leopard) and USA (M60A1) were requested. Trials tanks arrived onshore in 1972 and a final decision to order made in 1974...

 

[Rob c]

No, not a decade.

Australian procurement activities for what became AS1 Leopard started in 1971 when a request for trials vehicles from Germany (Leopard) and USA (M60A1) were requested. Trials tanks arrived onshore in 1972 and a final decision to order made in 1974...

It was well over a decade, as Kiwigov said it was in 1960 that the M41's arrived to replace the Valentines, I think you misinterpreted his "Late 1960 as late 1960's" . they had already been in service for 14 years when the order for the Leopards was placed and our centurions had already been sold to Australia for parts.

 

[Sierra Mike]

It was well over a decade, as Kiwigov said it was in 1960 that the M41's arrived to replace the Valentines, I think you misinterpreted his "Late 1960 as late 1960's" . they had already been in service for 14 years when the order for the Leopards was placed and our centurions had already been sold to Australia for parts.

Yep my bad…

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Yep my bad…

Does nz army see a need for tanks these days? Surely numbers of personell should be the issue here?

 

[ngatimozart]

Does nz army see a need for tanks these days? Surely numbers of personell should be the issue here?

I don't believe so because it's structured around light infantry and tanks require heavy infantry in support. They also require engineering, mechanical and logistics support that the army simply doesn't have the capability to provide any more.

 

[Rob c]

I don't believe so because it's structured around light infantry and tanks require heavy infantry in support. They also require engineering, mechanical and logistics support that the army simply doesn't have the capability to provide any more.

Yep, because like everything in the NZ armed forces they don't have the money to have tanks, or a lot of other capabilities that have been lost over time due to Government cuts to all arms.

 

[Shanesworld]

I don't believe so because it's structured around light infantry and tanks require heavy infantry in support. They also require engineering, mechanical and logistics support that the army simply doesn't have the capability to provide any more.

Heavy armour still feature in officer tewts. In a theoretical sense. Ive sat in on a couple and tanks still get a mention but never explained how those officers or the defence force acquired them.

 

[Gooey]

Does nz army see a need for tanks these days? Surely numbers of personell should be the issue here?

I'd opinion that yes the Army, in its heart, does know that this equipment is needed in a medium/high-intensity campaign. Because MBTs have always been needed by a balanced, land force where the nation decides that our young men have to close with, kill, and hold ground. Along with all the other bits and bobs.
The fact that NZG does not fund this is not a reflection of our need. It is yet another example of an embarrassingly inept, national security assessment and implementation. Read alongside this: an emaciated fighting Navy and Air Force; 2 clapped-out frigates; no ACF; P-8 program that is unarmed and under-resourced; horrible plastic helicopters; and, an unbalanced and undermanned Army.

 

[Kiwigov]

I'd opinion that yes the Army, in its heart, does know that this equipment is needed in a medium/high-intensity campaign. Because MBTs have always been needed by a balanced, land force where the nation decides that our young men have to close with, kill, and hold ground.

Yes, nasty and repeated experience in the desert emphatically showed that 2NZEF needed its own armoured brigade - which it had in time for the Italian Campaign; that would have been Army lore as long as the veterans had any influence. The NZLAV decision (setting aside the perennial wheels vs tracks debate) could have been informed by a preference for the installed 25mm cannon, given the impressive performance of the similarly-armed Bradley in GW1. At the time, the Audit Office criticised the LAV procurement including a view that the German-made 6-wheel Fuchs should have been selected; not stated was that the Fuchs was only armed with a single MG (I think subsequent manufacturer versions have included cannon armament)

 

[recce.k1]

I'll just add that if we had a balanced and even a slightly better funded defence force then tanks could play a part (although the question could be, what type eg heavy or medium? Then some other questions if heavy, would we be better basing them in Australia, to enable quicker and efficient deployment to where they would be needed? And as a real and genuine contribution to "the defence of Australia"? After all if Aust is ever "over run", then NZ will be too. Always best to fight your enemy away from your own shores if possible and contribute to collective defence etc).

In the meantime until the correct funding is found I would suggest it is not a high priority (NZDF overall - there would be other higher priorities), and as NM nicely articulates it would require additional funding to build up "engineering, mechanical and logistics support". (Which is not impossible to overcome but it would be done over time. If we look back at the introduction of the LAVIII the Army needed to vastly upskill, technically, over a many years. So the skillsets are much better now, probably not quite there for "tanks" but could be further built upon).

However ... and this may seem contradictory - I also don't believe the status quo is the correct path looking and moving forward, and some "corrections" need to be prioritised right now.

1. The Army has always required better mobile/protected fire power than 25mm (the LAVII turret). If we put "tanks" aside for a moment, what other mobile/protected options would be suitable for NZ with at least 76mm or 105mm caliber (and then should they be wheeled or tracked etc)? Remember the Army only lost its 76mm firepower with the early retirement of the Scorpions and the later decision to acquire additional LAVIII's (to equip two motorised battalions, rather than less LAV's and new additional Fire Support Vehicles).

2. The Army needs to train in working with tank formations (ideally).

3. But IMO this is also important and needs to be addressed. When overseas military forces comes to NZ for training, in essence they come to a place here that is like tailored for light infantry and firepower. Not that I am an expert but to me this seems rather "unrealistic" in terms of what modern threats need countering, when training. If this is an issue I would advocate that the NZDF obtain a small number of heavy (or medium) tanks, such as say 10-12 for example, which could based within the North Island (Waiouru) designated training area (and perhaps some in the South Island (Tekapo) training area). Perhaps logistically/support wise this might not be practical, but I was trying to avoid the need to deploy them from Linton (NI) or Burham (SI) chewing up roads and possibly restricted by old bridge infrastructure?

This would be a relatively "cheap" proposal.

Being "training aids" it would be easier to "sell" the concept to both politicians and the inevitable anti-defence critics we have, after all who can deny the need for the NZDF to train for the "modern" battlefield? They are also not intended to be deployable (which would be another issue altogther, logistics and support wise). Perhaps also they wouldn't need all the "bells and whistles" (in terms of counter measures etc) hence saving costs (but on the other hand the more "bells and whistles" the more realistic the training. Will leave that to the experts, the Army themselves to decide). But I'm sure the US would be willing to sell (or lease) some tanks to NZ even if they were not necessarily at the latest standard, at affordable prices.

If this happened, we would have a small (training) nucleus that could also in time, should the strategic environment require it, allow NZ to acquire and build up a capable and deployable armoured force element (and the training and sustaining etc), should the funding be prioritised for such.

Something similar could be done in terms of an initial fast-air training capability, but that's another issue altogther (and would be a lot more costly).

 

[Kiwigov]

2. The Army needs to train in working with tank formations (ideally).

3. But IMO this is also important and needs to be addressed. When overseas military forces comes to NZ for training, in essence they come to a place here that is like tailored for light infantry and firepower. Not that I am an expert but to me this seems rather "unrealistic" in terms of what modern threats need countering, when training. If this is an issue I would advocate that the NZDF obtain a small number of heavy (or medium) tanks, such as say 10-12 for example, which could based within the North Island (Waiouru) designated training area

Yes, this was exactly the rationale for buying the Centurions in the 1950s, based solely at Waiouru - train NZ crews in a tank they could use with British forces. The NZ Army does (?) train in its NZLAVs with the Aust M1A2s, when units participate in exercises in Queensland. That said, I can't see any realistic prospect of NZG choosing to allocate scarce Defence funding to buying a couple of troops of Abrams, which could never be deployed.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Yes, this was exactly the rationale for buying the Centurions in the 1950s, based solely at Waiouru - train NZ crews in a tank they could use with British forces. The NZ Army does (?) train in its NZLAVs with the Aust M1A2s, when units participate in exercises in Queensland. That said, I can't see any realistic prospect of NZG choosing to allocate scarce Defence funding to buying a couple of troops of Abrams, which could never be deployed.

Surely HMNZS Canterbury can deploy at least when docked offload tanks given its capacity for carrying Lav 3, trucks ,troops etc? And future replacements planned bigger still. What's happened to the JATF concept /Joint Amphibious Taskforce NZDF boasted about years ago? Can we not at least assist Australia in carrying its armour?

 

[Kiwigov]

Surely HMNZS Canterbury can deploy at least when docked offload tanks given its capacity for carrying Lav 3, trucks ,troops etc? And future replacements planned bigger still. What's happened to the JATF concept /Joint Amphibious Taskforce NZDF boasted about years ago? Can we not at least assist Australia in carrying its armour?

I'd defer to naval specialists, but afaik Canterbury's hold and loading ramp is not designed to transport main battle tanks (certainly the ship's two landing craft don't have the capacity to do so). Based on past trends, a "future replacement" might enter service in 2037 (ie. 30 years after L421 was commissioned). Might be a bit late

 

[ngatimozart]

WRT armoured forces there are other options to them and I am of the opinion that we don't require a traditional armoured regiment / brigade. What we could be better providing is something along the lines of a mounted rifles regiment with light / medium infantry being carried into battle by wheeled IFV, medium fire support being provided by the same vehicle, heavy fire support from large gun / howitzer turrets mounted on the same base IFV vehicle, SPAAG turrets again mounted on the same base IFV vehicle etc. It's a quick mobile well armed force and with modern ATGM if it meets an enemy armoured column it an retreat and call upon an allied / coalition armoured force to rough up the enemy armoured force. Even the support / logistics units are in IFVs or protected MAN 8 x 8 trucks meaning they an go everywhere that the IFVs can. Army officers can have wet dreams over tanks but NZ days of operating tanks are long gone because there is no longer any justification for them and there hasn't been since the 1960s. Much like some naval officers may have wet dreams over cruisers, or air force officers over bombers. Again not justification for either and haven't been since the 1960s.

Surely HMNZS Canterbury can deploy at least when docked offload tanks given its capacity for carrying Lav 3, trucks ,troops etc? And future replacements planned bigger still. What's happened to the JATF concept /Joint Amphibious Taskforce NZDF boasted about years ago? Can we not at least assist Australia in carrying its armour?

No, AFAIK it was never built to take tanks or other tracked armoured vehicles. Certainly wouldn't be able to offload them at sea because the ramp wouldn't be able to take the weight of an Abrams M-1A2, Leopard 2, or Challenger 2. I don't think that the vehicle deck could hold them either. When Canterbury was ordered the then GOTD was not interested in moving Australian armoured forces anywhere. If they had there way it wouldn't been armed with a solitary 25mm gun, and they would've had the crew singing kumbaya, probably followed by the Internationale, as it came alongside.

At yesterday's Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Select Committee CDF AM Kevin Short told the Committee that NZDF only had three capabilities able to operate in a high intensity conflict. These were the ANZAC Class frigates, P-3K2 Orions, and the NZSAS. He went on to say that one of the frigates, Te Kaha, is only operational because the second, Te Mana, is still in Canada undergoing refit and isn't due back until July of this year. The article's author Richard Harman suggests that overall, CDF's remarks suggest a concern that the current government won't consider urgency in replacement of the frigates, which CDF see as a vital part of NZ's defence requirements.

Defence Chief admits much of our defence force not up to “warfighting” | Politik - Paywalled

The full video of the Hearing is here:

Annual Review of NZ Defence Force and Ministry of Defence (17 February 2022) | Annual Review of NZ Defence Force and Ministry of Defence (17 February 2022) Today’s submitters: - New Zealand Defence Force: Air Marshal Kevin Short,... | By Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee | Facebook

Annual Review of NZ Defence Force and Ministry of Defence (17 February 2022) Today’s submitters: - New Zealand Defence Force: Air Marshal Kevin Short,...

fb.watch

It is good that CDF has bought this up at the Select Committee. He won't be doing himself any favours because the government will not take kindly to this, but he does highlight the inability of NZDF to do its job.

 

[recce.k1]

WRT armoured forces there are other options to them and I am of the opinion that we don't require a traditional armoured regiment / brigade. What we could be better providing is something along the lines of a mounted rifles regiment with light / medium infantry being carried into battle by wheeled IFV, medium fire support being provided by the same vehicle, heavy fire support from large gun / howitzer turrets mounted on the same base IFV vehicle, SPAAG turrets again mounted on the same base IFV vehicle etc. It's a quick mobile well armed force and with modern ATGM if it meets an enemy armoured column it an retreat and call upon an allied / coalition armoured force to rough up the enemy armoured force. Even the support / logistics units are in IFVs or protected MAN 8 x 8 trucks meaning they an go everywhere that the IFVs can. Army officers can have wet dreams over tanks but NZ days of operating tanks are long gone because there is no longer any justification for them and there hasn't been since the 1960s. Much like some naval officers may have wet dreams over cruisers, or air force officers over bombers. Again not justification for either and haven't been since the 1960s.

I tend to agree with a lot of your assessment and I'll walk back some of my earlier comments (rushed thoughts and writing whilst getting ready for work this morning etc).

Future options such as Boxer could fit the bill perhaps, for IFV & medium fire support provided by the same vehicle (or did you have something else in mind)?

But for now we have the LAVIII until a decision on replacement or upgrade is made. Can you see any realistic upgrade options for the LAVIII?

And are you envisaging IFV's being supplied by an armoured regiment (eg QAMR) or equipping one or both infantry battalions as per the original LAVIII requirement?

I'm not convinced of the LAVIII base options for heavy fire support (something that has been raised here over the years eg the 105mm gun option). So rather than basing heavy fire support on whatever base is chosen, would the NZ Army be better off looking at self-propelled howitzers (such as the Singaporean SSPH1 Primus or following Australia's lead with the K9 for interoperability reasons)?

I know you are an advocate of ditching the unprotected towed howitzers, so perhaps some contenders?

In terms of tanks, yes I would now say unless NZ forces are fighting peers with heavy tanks it probably isn't the most pressing item at the moment or foreseeable future, when better equipping and sustaining a mobile light / medium force would be needed first. I'll park that idea up.

In terms of having some for training purposes (and I was envisaging something slightly older, second hand and thus super cheap, as they wouldn't be deployable or needed to be at FOC levels nor need the full range and quantities of ammo etc), but I guess anything else could substitute for training in NZ conditions (as it can be simulated anyway), but presumably the key is something that is actually up-to-date and fully inter-operable and has the necessary data-links to contribute to the modern battlefield environment (even if it is another IFV or similar type) .

 

[swerve]

... At the time, the Audit Office criticised the LAV procurement including a view that the German-made 6-wheel Fuchs should have been selected; not stated was that the Fuchs was only armed with a single MG (I think subsequent manufacturer versions have included cannon armament)

The Fuchs was originally intended to be a battlefield taxi, protected transport for an infantry squad, not expected to fight. The German army had a lot of other AFVs for that. Not the best buy for any other role unless re-equipped.

 

[Rob c]

It is good that CDF has bought this up at the Select Committee. He won't be doing himself any favours because the government will not take kindly to this, but he does highlight the inability of NZDF to do its job.

Yep, he won't make Governor general or ambassador to a significant country when he retires.

At the time, the Audit Office criticised the LAV procurement including a view that the German-made 6-wheel Fuchs should have been selected; not stated was that the Fuchs was only armed with a single MG (I think subsequent manufacturer versions have included cannon armament)

I have always questioned why the Bean Counters try to and get involved with the selection process of military equipment when they have absolutely no training or understanding of the military strategic or tactical implications of these decisions and would be hard put to win a bun fight at their cafeteria.