NZDF General discussion thread

[Stuart M]

The lav sale is going ahead. 22. Worst timing ever.

Or the best time?

"Luxon agreed New Zealand should avoid being dragged into one camp or another over the crisis."

Ukraine Crisis: Christopher Luxon says New Zealand must keep independent foreign policy in aftermath of Ukraine conflict - NZ Herald

It seems that NZ no longer has any intention of taking part in any kind of active resistance to aggression as displayed by Russia or China.

 

[Shanesworld]

Or the best time?

"Luxon agreed New Zealand should avoid being dragged into one camp or another over the crisis."

Ukraine Crisis: Christopher Luxon says New Zealand must keep independent foreign policy in aftermath of Ukraine conflict - NZ Herald

It seems that NZ no longer has any intention of taking part in any kind of active resistance to aggression as displayed by Russia or China.

And if we are no longer afforded the luxury of choice on the matter? Its more Polly anna fantasy stuff. We are weak we need to bulk up and learn new/old skills. Getting rid of LAV without a replavement fleet is stupid, doubly so when we lack so many infantry.

 

[Stuart M]

And if we are no longer afforded the luxury of choice on the matter? Its more Polly anna fantasy stuff. We are weak we need to bulk up and learn new/old skills. Getting rid of LAV without a replavement fleet is stupid, doubly so when we lack so many infantry.

You always have a choice, and as of now NZ has chosen to always accommodate itself to aggressive nations, so I think the question you pose is no longer applicable.

NZ has wilfully made itself a neutral state with ineffective armed forces that has neither the will nor the means of opposing aggressive nations, this is the settled policy of government and it is now fully backed in this by the opposition, so why have LAVs?

Its taken me a long time to see whats happened, and I don't agree with it, but at some point in the late 90's It seems a deal was done between Labour and National; in return for Labour essentially agreeing with the Nat's free market/free trade agenda National would essentially support, or not oppose, neutrality, disarmament and pacifism.

 

[spoz]

That's a view that says yous should ahve run an independent, even handed, foreign policy after September 1939. Is his head really that far in the sand - keep it up and NZ's five eyes participation must be questioned. If you "don't want to be drawn into the orbit" then you should probably not be a member.

 

[recce.k1]

The lav sale is going ahead. 22. Worst timing ever.

Are you in a position to clarify, perhaps roughly in a general sense, how many LAV have been allocated to QAMR and do the battalions still have their own fleets, albeit lesser?

I think it has been reported before that 35(?) LAV's have never been used (or not had much use) due to the re-rolling the battalions back to light infantry (hence the "sale" idea ... mind you the sale idea has been floated for what, nearly 10 years now)?

 

[recce.k1]

That's a view that says yous should ahve run an independent, even handed, foreign policy after September 1939. Is his head really that far in the sand - keep it up and NZ's five eyes participation must be questioned. If you "don't want to be drawn into the orbit" then you should probably not be a member.

Sure, not the sort of responses that we all here would like to be hearing .... but Luxon is relatively new to politics (elected in 2020, background being business and recently the airline industry) and doesn't have access to the confidential briefings that the GOTD receives. Personally I would reserve judgment until Luxon is sworn in as PM if his party wins the 2023 election and becomes better informed. I'm sure the state of world affairs (CCP active in the Pacific, the Taiwan issue, the rise or fall of Russia by then, Pacific instability etc) will see changes to NZ's worldview. And in some respects Luxon is right, we are a small nation with a small military, and there isn't much that NZ can realistically contribute militarily (mind you that's our fault and shouldn't remain as the new normal), what we have got is all we have got (as in "it is what it is"). Sure in the interests of collective security NZ should do a bit more (provide funding a la Australia's announcements, to fund armaments from the EU etc). The initial $2M pathetic response is normal - the NZG always announces a small sum initially, then increases it over time - we see this happening all the time (eg when there is a flooding event or other disaster etc), even though it is frustrating initially.

 

[Stuart M]

That's a view that says yous should ahve run an independent, even handed, foreign policy after September 1939. Is his head really that far in the sand - keep it up and NZ's five eyes participation must be questioned. If you "don't want to be drawn into the orbit" then you should probably not be a member.

I don't think its subjective to say that the NZ of today would ever oppose Nazi Germany.
I question the sustainability of NZ Five Eyes participation, its certainly at odds with NZs declared foreign policy and that of the opposition. I submit that over time NZ participation in Five Eyes will be abandoned, or rather less dramatically, the other nations will just come to other arraignments that mimic the five eyes agreement, but exclude NZ. How AUKUS came about could be the template for NZs defacto exclusion from Five Eyes, by Five Eyes becoming One Eye.

 

[Stuart M]

Sure, not the sort of responses that we all here would like to be hearing .... but Luxon is relatively new to politics (elected in 2020, background being business and recently the airline industry) and doesn't have access to the confidential briefings that the GOTD receives. Personally I would reserve judgment until Luxon is sworn in as PM if his party wins the 2023 election and becomes better informed. I'm sure the state of world affairs (CCP active in the Pacific, the Taiwan issue, the rise or fall of Russia by then, Pacific instability etc) will see changes to NZ's worldview. snip

Im not sure I agree. Luxons previous work, to say nothing of his formative education, would have exposed him to the nature of international politics, and whilst he wouldn't be across the detail of defence policy, the evolving nature of the world is not something I think he can claim ignorance of.
I predict that what we have seen with his remarks will form the broad thrust of Nationals foreign and, effectively, defence policy.

 

[recce.k1]

I don't think its subjective to say that the NZ of today would ever oppose Nazi Germany.
I question the sustainability of NZ Five Eyes participation, its certainly at odds with NZs declared foreign policy and that of the opposition. I submit that over time NZ participation in Five Eyes will be abandoned, or rather less dramatically, the other nations will just come to other arraignments that mimic the five eyes agreement, but exclude NZ. How AUKUS came about could be the template for NZs defacto exclusion from Five Eyes, by Five Eyes becoming One Eye.

I don't agree with these negative viewpoints (which is fine, we all have a right to agree or disagree and amicably discuss etc), but you do raise some interesting points so lets discuss.
Firstly 5 Eyes - as NM has pointed out rather succinctly in a recent previous post where NZ fits in and there is no reason to suggest anything will change.

AUKUS is not the same as 5 Eyes etc.

As for WW2 comparisons, remember our defence (and FA) policies were aligned with London. Their naval (and air force etc) boards would determine what Cruisers we had and what aircraft the RNZAF would operate and they either provided them (at our cost) or denied them (like how the UK denied fighters and medium bombers for NZ initially as they were prioritised for Russia). Hence the turn to the USA for help.

Post war, even though the UK had devolved military planning to NZ (we became "independent" way back then), because of the UK's interest in SE Asia NZ still contributed to the UK's collective defence efforts (and were the primary reasons why, for example, NZ had an air combat force. Not so much for NZ's defence (which it ought to have been) but for political diplomacy reasons). (Interesting tidbit IIRC: RNZAF actually wanted the F-4 Phantom years before they were final options for replacements for the Canberra bomber in the mid/late 1960's. RNZAF initially wanted the UK production variant to be interoperable with the RAF Far East Air Force but once UK foreign policy changed and the UK signalled pulling out of SE Asia there went the RNZAF's plans to procure them ie govt didn't want to fund them because there was no joint political reasons to do so. RNZAF then tried to obtain the USAF F-4D variant later as the Canberra replacement and we know how that turned out)!

Anyway my long winded point is, when the UK pulled out of SE Asia (and prior, east of Suez when RNZAF leased RAF Vampire day-fighters and operated them in Cyprus, then later Venoms and Canberras in Singapore), one could say the NZDF lost a lot of its "grounding" (politically and militarily).

Then when the US kicked us out of ANZUS in 1985, again the NZDF lots a lot of its "grounding" (again both politically and militarily).

I would suggest the best way for NZ to regain "lethal" capabilities (across the spectrum) would be for the UK or US to somehow bring NZ back under its fold (and "ground" the ever-revolving door of NZ politicians tinkering with the NZDF trying to fit them into their worldviews).

There are endless possibilities here. One option could be greater RAF/RNZAF co-operation (like there was historically). Perhaps lease NZ some early model Typhoons (that are being withdrawn from RAF service) so RNZAF can learn to regain combat capabilities (similarly the USAF could do this with boneyard F16's or even Australia with surplus early model F/A-18's). Or perhaps the UK could stockpile some Seaceptor missiles here for their naval vessels for when they deploy into the Asia-Pacific area meaning they have the ability to re-load if required (after all any conflict in Asia will see traditional allied bases targeted, why not disperse some crucial assets to far-away places like NZ and OZ? Singapore bases some of its assets in NZ and elsewhere eg OZ, USA etc, for similar reasons). NZDF could contribute funding to the Seaceptor stocks and ensure NZ has quick access to more missiles etc.

 

[Stuart M]

I don't agree with these negative viewpoints (which is fine, we all have a right to agree or disagree and amicably discuss etc), but you do raise some interesting points so lets discuss.
Firstly 5 Eyes - as NM has pointed out rather succinctly in a recent previous post where NZ fits in and there is no reason to suggest anything will change. Although we never hear about current NZ related activities related to 5 eyes, we know of previous efforts (such as evesdropping on Argentina's military during the Falklands war and feeding that back to the UK etc). Check out where NZ sits from a "globe" perspective rather than a 2D map perspective!

AUKUS is not the same as 5 Eyes etc.

As for WW2 comparisons, remember our defence (and FA) policies were aligned with London. Their naval (and air force etc) boards would determine what Cruisers we had and what aircraft the RNZAF would operate and they either provided them (at our cost) or denied them (like how the UK denied fighters and medium bombers for NZ initially as they were prioritised for Russia). Hence the turn to the USA for help.

Post war, even though the UK had devolved military planning to NZ (we became "independent" way back then), because of the UK's interest in SE Asia NZ still contributed to the UK's collective defence efforts (and were the primary reasons why, for example, NZ had an air combat force. Not so much for NZ's defence (which it ought to have been) but for political diplomacy reasons). (Interesting tidbit IIRC: RNZAF actually wanted the F-4 Phantom years before they were final options for replacements for the Canberra bomber in the mid/late 1960's. RNZAF initially wanted the UK production variant to be interoperable with the RAF Far East Air Force but once UK foreign policy changed and the UK signalled pulling out of SE Asia there went the RNZAF's plans to procure them ie govt didn't want to fund them because there was no joint political reasons to do so. RNZAF then tried to obtain the USAF F-4D variant later as the Canberra replacement and we know how that turned out)!

Anyway my long winded point is, when the UK pulled out of SE Asia (and prior, east of Suez when RNZAF leased RAF Vampire day-fighters and operated them in Cyprus, then later Venoms and Canberras in Singapore), one could say the NZDF lost a lot of its "grounding" (politically and militarily).

Then when the US kicked us out of ANZUS in 1985, again the NZDF lots a lot of its "grounding" (again both politically and militarily).

I would suggest the best way for NZ to regain "lethal" capabilities (across the spectrum) would be for the UK or US to somehow bring NZ back under its fold (and "ground" the ever-revolving door of NZ politicians tinkering with the NZDF trying to fit them into their worldviews).

There are endless possibilities here. One option could be greater RAF/RNZAF co-operation (like there was historically). Perhaps lease NZ some early model Typhoons (that are being withdrawn from RAF service) so RNZAF can learn to regain combat capabilities (similarly the USAF could do this with boneyard F16's or even Australia with surplus early model F/A-18's). Or perhaps the UK could stockpile some Seaceptor missiles here for their naval vessels for when they deploy into the Asia-Pacific area meaning they have the ability to re-load if required (after all any conflict in Asia will see traditional allied bases targeted, why not disperse some crucial assets to far-away places like NZ and OZ)? NZDF could contribute funding to the Seaceptor stocks and ensure NZ has quick access to more missiles etc.

No, AUKUS is not the same as Five Eyes, I was using that an example of how NZ could be polity excluded from intelligence sharing in that club, because its foreign and defence policy are increasingly that of 'not being dragged into one camp or another' and Five Eyes membership puts NZ in a camp. Exclusion is the logical conclusion of demonstrated NZ attitudes.

As to WW2 I was looking at NZ current policy settings applied in that era, with such settings NZ in 1939 wouldn't have been in that war.
As to the substance of your post, Im not sure I follow, I think it gets away from what is and has actually happened and is continuing to happen.

It is a point of fact that the leader of the National part has said this;

"Luxon agreed New Zealand should avoid being dragged into one camp or another over the crisis."

It is also a point of fact that the NZ government has refused to take measures to supply Ukraine with munitions, either its own or, more probably, by other means.

NZs actual defence capability/capacity is what it is and previous capabilities have not been restored under either a Nat or Labour government, nor is there any intention of doing, so despite the shift in the global situation. As a counter point to that, Germany's recent actions with its defence budget as well as the supplying Ukraine with munitions show's what can be done and NZ has not adopted anything remotely similar in the face of Russia's naked aggression let alone China's.

 

[Kiwigov]

I predict that what we have seen with his remarks will form the broad thrust of Nationals foreign and, effectively, defence policy.

Have to agree. National has consistent form - since at least 1991 - of willfully refusing to invest in capacities. The Bolger/Shipley government cut the limited Defence budget through the 1990s (though to be fair, that 'peace dividend' was common across the West) and the Key/English government simply continued the line of the Clark regime (though the Nats did agree to invest in HMNZS Aotearoa, and the Frigate MLU). Only from 2018, with NZ First in government, was there an actual drive to replace key RNZAF assets which were long out-of-date.

 

[Stuart M]

Have to agree. National has consistent form - since at least 1991 - of willfully refusing to invest in capacities. The Bolger/Shipley government cut the limited Defence budget through the 1990s (though to be fair, that 'peace dividend' was common across the West) and the Key/English government simply continued the line of the Clark regime (though the Nats did agree to invest in HMNZS Aotearoa, and the Frigate MLU). Only from 2018, with NZ First in government, was there an actual drive to replace key RNZAF assets which were long out-of-date.

Indeed... and if previous form is anything to go by Labour will seek to dispense with the frigates (don't need them for an anti-nuclear protests) and will also see to the end of the artillery when that is due for replacement (not used since Vietnam and NZ 'historically' prefers peacekeeping, not war making, and so does not need 'offensive' weaponry like artillery)

 

[Shanesworld]

Are you in a position to clarify, perhaps roughly in a general sense, how many LAV have been allocated to QAMR and do the battalions still have their own fleets, albeit lesser?

I think it has been reported before that 35(?) LAV's have never been used (or not had much use) due to the re-rolling the battalions back to light infantry (hence the "sale" idea ... mind you the sale idea has been floated for what, nearly 10 years now)?

I told it is public info but I am skeptical that it will be remembered that way if any pressure befalls a certain miniter who is currently facing some personal challenges. But a south american country checked them out. Only want 22. A number of systems are approaching end of life of type but are still really serviceable and perform very well comparably specifically fcs.
But they are all being refurbished and prepared for sale which i believe is something like 18 to 24 months. At least that was how long they wanted another person on that job.

From what I understand the whole fleet has been cycled through to try to maintain a near uniform state of wear. But from the squaddy rumour mill alot of stuff was missing or u/s when qamr got them all back. Since rectified but seemingly at the effort of qamr and LM.

But if we need to seize and hold ground in the pacific those things are better than alot of bigger heavy options as we can get them off the beach. If we had bought the mortar carrier even more so. And i'll admit i thought they were shit when we bought them and thought we should have bought tracks but they are capable, we have them and armour saves lives.

The original requirement until qamr (subject matter experts) was removed as lead and certain picked individuals put in charge, was for 156 vehicles of several variants. That was driven down to 105.

 

[Shanesworld]

Have to agree. National has consistent form - since at least 1991 - of willfully refusing to invest in capacities. The Bolger/Shipley government cut the limited Defence budget through the 1990s (though to be fair, that 'peace dividend' was common across the West) and the Key/English government simply continued the line of the Clark regime (though the Nats did agree to invest in HMNZS Aotearoa, and the Frigate MLU). Only from 2018, with NZ First in government, was there an actual drive to replace key RNZAF assets which were long out-of-date.

Max Bradford I thought tried harder than most. But I think they also new that they wouldn't need to follow through.

If only- 3-4 frigates, 28 f16's. Maybe blackhawks and c130's 2 decades earlier that what transpired. Would have been a good base to deal with todays heightened tensions.

 

[recce.k1]

But if we need to seize and hold ground in the pacific those things are better than alot of bigger heavy options as we can get them off the beach. If we had bought the mortar carrier even more so. And i'll admit i thought they were shit when we bought them and thought we should have bought tracks but they are capable, we have them and armour saves lives.

The original requirement until qamr (subject matter experts) was removed as lead and certain picked individuals put in charge, was for 156 vehicles of several variants. That was driven down to 105.

You raise a good point, the LAVIII may be heavy but it isn't as heavy as more contemporary vehicles. There are pros and cons with this but one pro is we could move them around the Islands "easier" as you say (should that hypothetically be required to reclaim territory, well assuming there is friendly air and sea control of course).

Future replacement options are interesting then. We would need something heavier and better protected particularly for use "globally" (but probably with limits on where they can operate in some instances). I also think there is a place for the BAE ACV as recently suggested by some here, as we are a maritime nation and within a large maritime domain. I do wonder though about the complexities of a vehicle primarily designed for amphibious operations (and resulting technical specialties, parts or specialisation that would be needed and be sustained etc) and how it would fare if deployed for purely land operations (eg imagine operating in a land locked country or in dusty desert conditions etc). The USMC uses the likes of the LAV2.5 for land ops (to be replaced by the ARV) and the likes of Amtracs for amphibious ops. Perhaps NZ needs to study the USMC model and have two types (one primarily for land and one primarily for amphibious ops) or more? But how practical would that be for a relatively small defence force? Perhaps it would make sense to link a hypothetical ACV acquisition with the future LPD project (but then that would need Army specialists devoted to a ship much of their time? Does the Army need new funding to raise a group of personnel specialising in amphibious duties)? But traditionally the NZDF would want a vehicle primarily designed for land warfare so much to consider for defence planners perhaps.

What sort of variants were envisaged in the mid-late 90's by QAMR? Asking to compare to options available today and whether they would still be suitable for where the NZDF could be operating nowadays. Presumably the Bosnia experience would have been influential.

 

[Shanesworld]

You raise a good point, the LAVIII may be heavy but it isn't as heavy as more contemporary vehicles. There are pros and cons with this but one pro is we could move them around the Islands "easier" as you say (should that hypothetically be required to reclaim territory, well assuming there is friendly air and sea control of course).

Future replacement options are interesting then. We would need something heavier and better protected particularly for use "globally" (but probably with limits on where they can operate in some instances). I also think there is a place for the BAE ACV as recently suggested by some here, as we are a maritime nation and within a large maritime domain. I do wonder though about the complexities of a vehicle primarily designed for amphibious operations (and resulting technical specialties, parts or specialisation that would be needed and be sustained etc) and how it would fare if deployed for purely land operations (eg imagine operating in a land locked country or in dusty desert conditions etc). The USMC uses the likes of the LAV2.5 for land ops (to be replaced by the ARV) and the likes of Amtracs for amphibious ops. Perhaps NZ needs to study the USMC model and have two types (one primarily for land and one primarily for amphibious ops) or more? But how practical would that be for a relatively small defence force? Perhaps it would make sense to link a hypothetical ACV acquisition with the future LPD project (but then that would need Army specialists devoted to a ship much of their time? Does the Army need new funding to raise a group of personnel specialising in amphibious duties)? But traditionally the NZDF would want a vehicle primarily designed for land warfare so much to consider for defence planners perhaps.

What sort of variants were envisaged in the mid-late 90's by QAMR? Asking to compare to options available today and whether they would still be suitable for where the NZDF could be operating nowadays. Presumably the Bosnia experience would have been influential.

Mortar was the big one, ambo, c2, sigs (i think), engineering and mech fitter.I think it missed a air defence variant as that wasnt a finished product and was outside of scope. And no mention of the logistics one but i dont think canada went withit either. Dont know the break down.
I gather the bosnian experience was pushing for tracks from what i can remember of the conversationbut politucally and financially a nonstarter.
I think given a couple of key emerging technologies i would pause a LAV replacement if it were being pushed now or soon. Amphib would definitely be a big plus though.

 

[danonz]

I don't agree with these negative viewpoints (which is fine, we all have a right to agree or disagree and amicably discuss etc), but you do raise some interesting points so lets discuss.
Firstly 5 Eyes - as NM has pointed out rather succinctly in a recent previous post where NZ fits in and there is no reason to suggest anything will change. Although we never hear about current NZ related activities related to 5 eyes, we know of previous efforts (such as evesdropping on Argentina's military during the Falklands war and feeding that back to the UK etc). Check out where NZ sits from a "globe" perspective rather than a 2D map perspective!

AUKUS is not the same as 5 Eyes etc.

As for WW2 comparisons, remember our defence (and FA) policies were aligned with London. Their naval (and air force etc) boards would determine what Cruisers we had and what aircraft the RNZAF would operate and they either provided them (at our cost) or denied them (like how the UK denied fighters and medium bombers for NZ initially as they were prioritised for Russia). Hence the turn to the USA for help.

Post war, even though the UK had devolved military planning to NZ (we became "independent" way back then), because of the UK's interest in SE Asia NZ still contributed to the UK's collective defence efforts (and were the primary reasons why, for example, NZ had an air combat force. Not so much for NZ's defence (which it ought to have been) but for political diplomacy reasons). (Interesting tidbit IIRC: RNZAF actually wanted the F-4 Phantom years before they were final options for replacements for the Canberra bomber in the mid/late 1960's. RNZAF initially wanted the UK production variant to be interoperable with the RAF Far East Air Force but once UK foreign policy changed and the UK signalled pulling out of SE Asia there went the RNZAF's plans to procure them ie govt didn't want to fund them because there was no joint political reasons to do so. RNZAF then tried to obtain the USAF F-4D variant later as the Canberra replacement and we know how that turned out)!

Anyway my long winded point is, when the UK pulled out of SE Asia (and prior, east of Suez when RNZAF leased RAF Vampire day-fighters and operated them in Cyprus, then later Venoms and Canberras in Singapore), one could say the NZDF lost a lot of its "grounding" (politically and militarily).

Then when the US kicked us out of ANZUS in 1985, again the NZDF lots a lot of its "grounding" (again both politically and militarily).

I would suggest the best way for NZ to regain "lethal" capabilities (across the spectrum) would be for the UK or US to somehow bring NZ back under its fold (and "ground" the ever-revolving door of NZ politicians tinkering with the NZDF trying to fit them into their worldviews).

There are endless possibilities here. One option could be greater RAF/RNZAF co-operation (like there was historically). Perhaps lease NZ some early model Typhoons (that are being withdrawn from RAF service) so RNZAF can learn to regain combat capabilities (similarly the USAF could do this with boneyard F16's or even Australia with surplus early model F/A-18's). Or perhaps the UK could stockpile some Seaceptor missiles here for their naval vessels for when they deploy into the Asia-Pacific area meaning they have the ability to re-load if required (after all any conflict in Asia will see traditional allied bases targeted, why not disperse some crucial assets to far-away places like NZ and OZ? Singapore bases some of its assets in NZ and elsewhere eg OZ, USA etc, for similar reasons). NZDF could contribute funding to the Seaceptor stocks and ensure NZ has quick access to more missiles etc.

I wonder how much the new free trade deal will impact defense policy going forward. Does any one know if it will make it significantly easier to buy from UK rather than say a FMS deal through USA ? and if it was easier I'm not sure it would over rule other factors like platform requirements but still may play apart in the weighting of the decision.

 

[recce.k1]

I wonder how much the new free trade deal will impact defense policy going forward. Does any one know if it will make it significantly easier to buy from UK rather than say a FMS deal through USA ? and if it was easier I'm not sure it would over rule other factors like platform requirements but still may play apart in the weighting of the decision.

That's a good question and I too have been hoping we would hear a great deal more about impacts on defence policy (but it doesn't seem to be playing out in public which isn't unusual unfortunately). In relation to being easier to buy from the likes of the UK v US, I would think considerations would include the financial terms of any deals (eg the amount to be paid over x period of time and possibly any loan interest rates considerations). There could also be differing arrangements (if any) for local industry to participate by supplying some of the components (depending on what the finished product is eg ship, aircraft or vehicle etc). And importantly for the operators of any proposed kit (NZDF) do they want to be fully interoperable with Australian and US systems and technology or change over to UK or European etc. At the end of the day there will be a budget to adhere to (and the likes of Treasury to convince). So no easy answer as it may depend on what is actually required (ship, plane, vehicle etc).

But let's look at a real life example, contrary to the naysayers there is NZDF interest in the Type 26 Frigate and at the time of the following article being published, for 2-3 vessels. (You would think nowadays at least 4 would be a fair number considering the strategic situation we are facing but that's simply wishful thinking on my part).

BAE hopeful of multimillion-pound deal with New Zealand

Defence group says country is ‘clearly interested’ in deal for its advanced warships

www.ft.com

Could the UK variant clinch the deal? What if it were offered a lot cheaper than the Australian variant (Hunter Class) which is more than likely due to the added costs to "Australianise" their vessels with their own unique and leading edge CEA Phased-Array Radar and Aegis combat management system etc? But then on the other hand, how much extra would it cost to swap out some UK systems with US systems, allowing for smoother interoperability and crew exchanges with our Australian allies? Would that make the Canadian version more applicable for NZ (eg familarity with LM CMS etc)? Interesting discussions on the Canadian thread here about their requirements for torpedo launchers, which RNZN would want as well, but something the RN aren't installing on theirs. So these are the issues for the NZDF and MoD to work through but costs will be an important factor.

If the UK could produce a T26 for NZ$2b/ship (US$1.4b/ship), I would suggest that's a reasonable cost that the NZG could afford. 3x vessels at $NZ6b is doable (and so are 4 vessels at $8b that is also doable - I know people here will say "no way, you are dreaming" but when the NZG is quite happy to spend NZ$14b+++ on light rail to Auckand airport (and billions and billions on other vanity projects) please don't tell me we can't afford high capability assets when we can, and especially when we have the CCP trying to setup bases in our region (and how will that play out over the next 10-20 years)! However it is a also a matter of having a balanced force and other lethal assets nowadays so one may not to put all its eggs in one basket. Eg if only 3x T26 were acquired, the other $2b (as no longer required) could fund an additional 5x P-8A's as an example (they cost approx NZ$400m/aircraft currently).

 

[KiwiRob]

The lav sale is going ahead. 22. Worst timing ever.

Probably not able to answer but who it buying them?

 

[KiwiRob]

Or the best time?

"Luxon agreed New Zealand should avoid being dragged into one camp or another over the crisis."

Ukraine Crisis: Christopher Luxon says New Zealand must keep independent foreign policy in aftermath of Ukraine conflict - NZ Herald

It seems that NZ no longer has any intention of taking part in any kind of active resistance to aggression as displayed by Russia or China.

Nobody is taking part actively, we're not doing anything different than the vast majority of other countries out there.