NZDF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

Replying here to a post from the RAN thread because the content and gist deals with the whole of the NZDF although a major portion is RNZN specific.

Which elements among Kiwi policy makers are you referring to in this day and age of hightened security concerns across the threat spectrum?

In terms of "coin" all three parties of the incoming coalition govt are talking about increasing defence expenditure (back to cold war levels).

I do not have specific names, as I do not follow Kiwi politics (or any politics for that matter) all that closely. However, I do note that the NZDF still have significant gaps in capability and no current discussion about closing/eliminating some of them, never mind a defence programme to accomplish that.

Relating to that, and touching on the 'coin' which would be required, how often has it seemed that MFAT was trying to have Defence operate like a business? As for talk among the incoming gov't coalition about increasing defence expenditure, not to be dismissive but, "so what?" It might become meaningful if such talk becomes actual action/policy and defence expenditure gets increased. OTOH even if (as the decision might be to postpone any increases until some time off in the future...) defence expenditure is increased by the incoming coalition, any such increases might not survive a change in gov't. IMO we need to wait and see if attitudes and/or the security situation has changed to such a degree that the NZDF can rely upon being properly resourced, regardless of who is in gov't.

With that in mind, and the understanding that many of those either in gov't or in the opposition are in some ways responsible for what the NZDF has become, or else they are acolytes or protegees of those who were responsible, it would be dangerous to assume that circumstances have actually changed because of talk.

Sorry, are you suggesting the RNZN will obtain replacement vessels without air/search/fire control radars, missile systems, ASW sonars, decoy & EW systems and so on and instead only be fitted with 25mm EO guns, which is the same combat value of the RNZN OPV's?

I would need to do a bit of digging to find it, but I have come across some who still (within the last year or so) are essentially advocating for the RNZN to become a coastguard/constabulary force. Such voices might be in the minority (I hope) if those advocates are continuing with an expectation that their positions will be considered seriously, that suggests there is at least some support for such positions. Some of the current and ongoing capability deficits in the RNZN and larger NZDF also reinforces this. An example of this would be the lack of any realistic anti-shipping capability across the whole of the NZDF.

Who might these people be? Peace groups or serious defence analysts? This thinking is a couple of decades out of date. NZG security assessments are focusing on global instability and security threats, which has bi-partisan political support. Like the AusGov NZGov has instigated a fleet review and it has been reported that the RNZN is talking to its RAN counterparts about future fleet options and commonality. The Aussie Minister for Defence Industry has stated "We’re very focused on where we can operate together, so interoperability is a critical feature. If there’s opportunities to build platforms together, if they eventuate, then we're happy to look at it."

I have little doubt that NZ defence analysts, like their counterparts in allied & friendly countries, have been noting the increase in potential and probable threats as well as the overall decline in global stability. As for there being bi-partisan political support... from my POV that remains to be seen, as it would not be until personnel & kit is acquired, and/or effort/steps taken to mitigate threats and then have these measures survive changes in gov't that we will know the support is there.

Who is objecting to this and why would that be when the focus is interoperability and closer defence working relationships? In recent times the RNZAF and NZ Army have acquired the exact same capabilities as the RAAF and Australian Army. No-one in NZG, defence or media circles are objecting to this. Excepting the usual suspects of peace-niks and the green party but life goes on without their antics.

Umm... No. The RNZAF and NZ Army has not acquired the exact same capabilities as the RAAF and Australian Army, not even close. There are examples where NZ has gotten some of the same capabilities, or some of the same platforms, but by no means has it gotten the exact same capabilities. I am also not so dismissive of the NZ Green Party, considering that they opposed the acquisition of ordnance for the P-8A Poseidons and to date, the RNZAF has a world class MPA for ASW ops but can only conduct surface search and surveillance. This is also the party which in the past had a major defence policy plank of passive non-compliance. Current Green Party core defence policy consists of peacekeeping, disaster relief, humanitarian work and environmental monitoring, only one of which is really even defence related. Attitudes might have started to change within the general population as well as decision/policy makers, but AFAIK the effects of a change in attitude has yet to manifest itself to any real degree.

Why wouldn't the RNZN be interested in that? Babcock are promoting the AH140 for NZ, which is kitted out with Mk41 VLS with a minimum of 32 cells. Previously BAE were promoting the T26. There are also bound to be other suppliers.

The most obvious answer is the question, what type of fitout does NZ want for RNZN warships? For VLS missiles, the RAN currently operates SM-2 and ESSM, neither of which the RNZN operates or has ever operated. Instead, the RNZN adopted the Sea Ceptor as a replacement for the old RIM-7 Sea Sparrow. Given the different capabilities of the Sea Ceptor (cold launch, no need for an illuminator, etc.) if NZ plans on keeping the Sea Ceptor in service and not replacing/augmenting them with SM-2 or ESSM (Block 2 especially) would it make sense for NZ to purchase vessels fitted with Mk 41 VLS, illuminators or any of the other things included in a design for the RAN?

End of Part 1: Hit the 10k character limit, cont'd in Part 2.

 

[Todjaeger]

Part 2

The main reason why the Kiwi ANZAC class have the different fit-out was to reduce top-weight/instability issues (TBH I really like the new RAN ANZAC class fit out and personally I would have supported the same upgrade), but the Aussie ANZACs also had to make compromises too because of the top-weight/instability issues (which have been discussed here so won't repeat them). This is less a NZ/Aus thing but more a limitation of the ANZAC class Frigate in terms of its weight/growth margins etc.

Also project risk was a factor - the thinking was that by joining on to the RCN Halifax Frigate upgrade programme the RNZN would acquire capabilities that could be scaled to fit the smaller ANZAC Frigate (de-risked by the Canadians being the first to do so etc). Whether ultimately this was the right decision could be open to debate, but as the saying goes it is what it is.

There was a bit more to it regarding fitout, as the Kiwi frigates always had a different fitout from the Oz frigates. Initially the difference was not so great, mainly the fact that the Kiwi frigates had a Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS mounted on the hangar roof, whilst the early Oz frigates had no CIWS. However things began to change with the completion of the fifth ANZAC-class frigate, HMAS Warramunga. The RAN frigates still (then and now) lacked a CIWS like the RNZN frigates, but in place of the old RIM-7 Sea Sparrow the RAN frigates would be fitted with RIM-162 ESSM which could be quad-packed into the Mk 41 VLS and the RAN vessels would also be fitted with an improved illuminator from CEA. Now in March 2018, the first RNZN frigate HMNZS Te Kaha arrived in Canada to undergo the major refit which would see a change in radars, CMS and VLS as well fitting the Kiwi frigate to fire the Sea Ceptor. One needs to keep in mind though that this refit started nearly 15 years (Oct 2003) after the first test firing of ESSM from an ANZAC-class frigate serving in the RAN. Now I do agree that one of the reasons why the Kiwi frigates went through a different upgrade programme was due to topweight concerns, but part of this was driven by the Kiwi frigates having had the Mk 15 Phalanx atop the hangar and deciding to retain it. In keeping the ~6t CIWS there, it basically eliminated the ESSM from being fitted to Kiwi frigates in useful numbers, at a time when eight missiles for air/self-defence was becoming no longer viable. Hence the selection of Sea Ceptor which was a smaller, lighter missile whilst more capable than the RIM-7 it was replacing. Adopting the Sea Ceptor which could be launched from the Mk 41 VLS but did not require that large (volume and displacement) a VLS led to the removal of the Mk 41, but I suspect it also triggered the change in CMS to LMC's CMS 330 which the Sea Ceptor is integrated with.

Here is the thing though, with the RNZN having moved away from what the RAN operate and adopting a different CMS (Kiwi frigates initially also operated 9LV) and missile armament, is NZ going to want to 'move back' as it were and operate the same types of radar and CMS as the RAN? Further, will the RNZN want (and gov't be willing to pay for) the RNZN to either get some of the same munitions as the RAN, or pay to have existing stocks of Kiwi missiles (Sea Ceptor) integrated into systems used by the RAN? IMO it would be more likely that NZ would select a design and CMS that is either already familiar to them and in use by the RNZN, or has already had systems and munitions the Kiwis use integrated. NZ also has not fitted the Kiwi frigates with any AShM, which would put the RNZN at a distinct disadvantage should NZ become embroiled in a conflict with any other maritime nation.

Well NZ didn't mind changing (from Saab to LM) so presumably the same logic could apply in the future and possibly do so. After all we are only talking about 2 NZ vessels currently to be concerned about (i.e. not a much greater fleet). But at the end of the day vessels like the T31/AH140 or T26/CSC/Hunter or whatever can be fitted with tailored weapon or CMS systems. Hypothetically the RNZN could have the same vessel as the RAN but with a different CMS (putting some risk back on NZ though but it shouldn't be insurmountable).

As I mentioned above, I suspect the reason behind the change in CMS was to try and reduce the risks/costs involved in changing the air defence missiles and/or the main radars used. I suspect (but do not know) that it might have been possible to keep 9LV and update portions of it to enable use of Sea Ceptor. It would likely have become a question of the risks involved as well as cost.

As for whatever the RNZN will have as a frigate replacement programme... the scope and status of that can be indicative of what the actual attitude among policy and decision makers is towards defence. If the current NZ plan holds to the DCP 2019 for a mid-2030's replacement, and/or a 1:1 replacement, that would strongly suggest to me that, contrary to any talk, gov't remains unwilling to resource Defence as it should.

 

[recce.k1]

Replying here to a post from the RAN thread because the content and gist deals with the whole of the NZDF although a major portion is RNZN specific.

I do not have specific names, as I do not follow Kiwi politics (or any politics for that matter) all that closely. However, I do note that the NZDF still have significant gaps in capability and no current discussion about closing/eliminating some of them, never mind a defence programme to accomplish that.

Relating to that, and touching on the 'coin' which would be required, how often has it seemed that MFAT was trying to have Defence operate like a business? As for talk among the incoming gov't coalition about increasing defence expenditure, not to be dismissive but, "so what?" It might become meaningful if such talk becomes actual action/policy and defence expenditure gets increased. OTOH even if (as the decision might be to postpone any increases until some time off in the future...) defence expenditure is increased by the incoming coalition, any such increases might not survive a change in gov't. IMO we need to wait and see if attitudes and/or the security situation has changed to such a degree that the NZDF can rely upon being properly resourced, regardless of who is in gov't.

With that in mind, and the understanding that many of those either in gov't or in the opposition are in some ways responsible for what the NZDF has become, or else they are acolytes or protegees of those who were responsible, it would be dangerous to assume that circumstances have actually changed because of talk.

*******

Hi Tod thanks for the reply and well constructed answers, speaking generally I'm largely in agreement but there are some nuances in relation to recent Govt signals which finally appear to be more "positive" compared to say the last 20 years (i.e. post 9/11) direction were things had been heading eg slightly up but still mostly flat. (Eg even the recent DefMin stated the Navy/Maritime needing greater investment - that was talk in an interview rather than something specifically contained in a report. But that's the sentiment).

Yes you are right there are significant capability gaps, both glaringly so and embarrassingly so, and much will be needed to be done to plug them (or realistically, some of them, as we can't completely mirror say Australia even on a smaller scale).

But there is however "current discussion about closing/eliminating some of them" via more strategic defence reviews (compared to previous efforts) and until the process is complete next year we will then get a sense of the defence programmes to accomplish that. Which is frustrating because there is either speculation or very little in the way of discussion by the professional security analysts (and thus on here).

On your second point, perhaps more like Treasury (Govt rules & policies) making defence as a business? So yes any potential increase in defence expediture simply means more "capital charges" heading back to govt and I acknowledge you have correctly identified and highlighted this "problem" in the past. I guess ideally any potential or projected increases in expenditure needs to be large enough to "compensate" for this issue. (And that's why I believe a higher figure of >2% is required in the medium/long term). Alternatively there have been periodic rumblings in the defence/security/academic sectors about removing defence (and other highly capitalised departments such as health) from these capital charges obligations. We can only wait to see if in particular the two minor coalition parties advocate for this, perhaps?

As to the "so what" issue, yes, agree until it happens .... and it is a "future" proposition as you note. Reaching 2% of gdp expenditure has been signalled to be over time i.e. perhaps not in this new 3 year Parliamentary term but more like the next up until 2030. OTOH we still await the defence review reports (2024) that will guide this. Perhaps they may signal a need to act faster?

But suggest the priorities will be to increase personnel recruitment and retention (and infrastructure such as more housing and base faciity upgrades) as that will pave the way to greater capabilities.

Can also suggest/speculate we may likely see improvements to the "mass" or numbers of existing capabilities (as personnel come on line) in the shorter term. Perhaps some new "niche"capabilities too.

With plans to increase eg naval combat capabilities from the 2030's onwards (the basis of this is the time to recruit and train new personnel plus ship building timeframes as per discussuions on the other naval threads - nothing new can be delivered until then.

Although there could be opportunities to acquire say a second hand Frigate (as the third) before then but the likely types in mind are already 20-30 years old. Although others here will, I don't think this option should be quickly dismissed, because MoD planning for future phased ANZAC Frigate upgrades (IIRC there are another 3-4 stages post the current comms system upgrades) which it has been stated that a Frigate will be out of action one at a time. This is not ideal from a capability/govt "outputs" perspective but IMO it could be "disasterous" from a personnel training and retention point of view due to the lack of time at sea and skillset development. It needs to be addressed not left until the 2030's when replacement vessels are commisssioned.

I think I have only discussed your opening paragraph and time is against me tonight to go further so for now, really quickly:

- acolytes or protegees etc. Times have finally changed, it is now becoming less of a problem (evidence - the last two Labour Govts 2017-2020, 2020-2023) now mostly/largely in step with Western thinking on global security issues. Disclaimer: I predict some shennigans from them now they are to be in Opposition (but nothing extreme like in previous decades).

- coastguard/constabulary force etc. These voices are barely vocal nowadays and the changing world security order is making their arguements redundant and not grounded in reality. If this was to have happend the opportunity was 20-30 years ago (pre 9/11 etc) when we were supposedly in a "bengin strategic environment". The moment (and this sort of sentiment) has passed and now gone forever.

- biprtisan support etc. Well Labour signed off on the P-8A acquistion (when 20 years ago that Labour Govt was anti-ASW capabilities), with their coalition partner at the time (NZ First) pushing for it. The project planning began under National. Labour recognised the changing strategic circumstances which is inline with National = bipartisan.

- "The RNZAF and NZ Army has not acquired the exact same capabilities as the RAAF and Australian Army," My bad, I meant acquired some of the exact same capabilities. I still stand by this.

- The P-8's have sonobuoys and Mk54 torps so can do more than simply "surface search and surveillance". And forget the Greens they had zero input into govt defence aquistions over the years nor will they this term as they are in Opposition!

- Yes future Frigate replacements will need illuminators if using SM family type missiles etc. Still think Seaceptor is good for point defence (as the RCN CSC will be fitted with) and ideally would like to see both Seaceptor (with its independent locking capability) and eg SM types for medium area defence etc.

- Sure different path taken with the ANZAC FSU upgrade to save on top weight (etc) but if the ANZAC's are replaced with something 5,000t plus that shouldn't be an issue again in terms of the missile/sensor fitout compromises that NZDF/MOD had to accept recently.

 

[Todjaeger]

- biprtisan support etc. Well Labour signed off on the P-8A acquistion (when 20 years ago that Labour Govt was anti-ASW capabilities), with their coalition partner at the time (NZ First) pushing for it. The project planning began under National. Labour recognised the changing strategic circumstances which is inline with National = bipartisan.

AND

- The P-8's have sonobuoys and Mk54 torps so can do more than simply "surface search and surveillance". And forget the Greens they had zero input into govt defence aquistions over the years nor will they this term as they are in Opposition!

Just a quick reply for now for now. I am aware of the P-8A ASW capabilities, which is why I mentioned that the RNZAF had acquired a world class ASW ops capability with the P-8. The fact remains though that no munitions were purchased when the P-8's were acquired which would provide them with an anti-surface or anti-shipping capability. So for all the potential SA that the Poseidons might bring to the NZDF with the APY-10 radar, they have very little ability to act upon or against targets they detect. Looking at the NZDF as a whole, there are circumstances which might be a little better, OTOH they also might not. The best anti-shipping capability which might be in service are Penguin Mk 2 Mod 7 AShM launched from SH-2G(I) Seasprites. These were to be acquired from Kongsberg under a contract signed in November 2013, however I have not been able to find out certain details like what the value of the contract was, how many missiles were purchased, when they were manufactured or what their end of service life was/is. All of this could be relevant given the history of the SH-2G(I) helicopters that NZ purchased, which were to be armed with Penguin AShM under a contract with the RAN from May 2004 for USD$10.1 mil This in turn suggests that NZ might have only acquired a very limited number of missiles and also that the missiles are getting rather old being nearly a decade old at a minimum, and more likely over 20 years old since the ex-RAN Penguins were at least partially produced in Australia at an ADI facility in Mulwala back in 2000. Side note, the USN price in 1997 for Penguins was ~USD$800,000/missile, which could mean that missiles purchased by NZ, if the ones originally contracted for the RAN, might only be a dozen missiles or so.

One reason for questioning whether or not the Penguins are even viable ordnance in Kiwi service is the lack of any information or public releases regarding successful test launches/fires by NZ of the Penguin even now, a decade after the contract was signed. I therefore do not consider it unreasonable to think that the Penguins might not be a realistically viable option, even if a Kiwi Seasprite could be deployed to where it could actually use one.

In fact, this general lack of an anti-shipping capability in platforms across the NZDF does highlight a potentially fast and relatively easy and inexpensive way to boot the overall capabilities of the NZDF. Simply put, have the NZDF invest in some AShM for launch from the Poseidons and/or the frigates.

I will try and get back to this later, but I need to call it quits for now as I am starting to fade.

 

[ngatimozart]

"The incoming Government doesn't have any "deep and immediate" concerns about China becoming more assertive in the Pacific, National foreign affairs spokesperson Gerry Brownlee says." Incoming Government says no 'deep and immediate' concern about China's influence in Pacific region | Newshub

The National Party are still too close to the CCP / PRC and Brownlie's claim shows that. Rumour has it he may be the new Speaker, so that keeps him out of Cabinet. Both ACT and NZ First see the CCP / PRC as a threat, so they may be able to counter National's CCP / PRC love affair. National need both of them to govern, so it doesn't have a really strong hand.

 

[recce.k1]

AND



Just a quick reply for now for now. I am aware of the P-8A ASW capabilities, which is why I mentioned that the RNZAF had acquired a world class ASW ops capability with the P-8. The fact remains though that no munitions were purchased when the P-8's were acquired which would provide them with an anti-surface or anti-shipping capability. So for all the potential SA that the Poseidons might bring to the NZDF with the APY-10 radar, they have very little ability to act upon or against targets they detect. Looking at the NZDF as a whole, there are circumstances which might be a little better, OTOH they also might not. The best anti-shipping capability which might be in service are Penguin Mk 2 Mod 7 AShM launched from SH-2G(I) Seasprites. These were to be acquired from Kongsberg under a contract signed in November 2013, however I have not been able to find out certain details like what the value of the contract was, how many missiles were purchased, when they were manufactured or what their end of service life was/is. All of this could be relevant given the history of the SH-2G(I) helicopters that NZ purchased, which were to be armed with Penguin AShM under a contract with the RAN from May 2004 for USD$10.1 mil This in turn suggests that NZ might have only acquired a very limited number of missiles and also that the missiles are getting rather old being nearly a decade old at a minimum, and more likely over 20 years old since the ex-RAN Penguins were at least partially produced in Australia at an ADI facility in Mulwala back in 2000. Side note, the USN price in 1997 for Penguins was ~USD$800,000/missile, which could mean that missiles purchased by NZ, if the ones originally contracted for the RAN, might only be a dozen missiles or so.

One reason for questioning whether or not the Penguins are even viable ordnance in Kiwi service is the lack of any information or public releases regarding successful test launches/fires by NZ of the Penguin even now, a decade after the contract was signed. I therefore do not consider it unreasonable to think that the Penguins might not be a realistically viable option, even if a Kiwi Seasprite could be deployed to where it could actually use one.

In fact, this general lack of an anti-shipping capability in platforms across the NZDF does highlight a potentially fast and relatively easy and inexpensive way to boot the overall capabilities of the NZDF. Simply put, have the NZDF invest in some AShM for launch from the Poseidons and/or the frigates.

I will try and get back to this later, but I need to call it quits for now as I am starting to fade.

Apologies I mis-interpreted your ASuW commentary (as meaning there wasn't ASW capabilities) but re-reading things I now understand where you are coming from. A couple of things first, sometimes the NZG does not annouce what munitions are bought with a capability (for “operational sensitivity” reasons). For example they did not announce the acquisition of some Mk 54's at the time of the P-8A acquisition in 2019 (this came out later from other defence media news in 2021 and 2023). So it could be possible some ASuM's were also purchased (and have yet to be announced)?

But let's assume not - that this has not happened (I suspect that this is most likely scenario anyway). Perhaps this was deliberate because any ASuM acquired back in 2019 would likely have been the AGM-84 Harpoon as it is certified for the P-8A. Whilst the Harpoon is still in widespread use across the globe it is becoming regarded as obsolete with nations looking at other newer replacement options. For a small country/defence force (NZ) with limited funding NZDF would likely have been "stuck" with the Harpoon ASuM capability for say another 10+ years without being able to replace it.

So with these limited funding opportunities the NZDF may astutely be waiting for the likes of AGM-158C LRASM to finish its development trials with USN P-8A's and reach certification etc (and no doubt be following the ADF as the regional lead anyway).

If so we can only but wait to see if an announcement (of intent) is forthcoming in next year's final defence review report. Granted any orders and fullfilment may take time (especially with competing multi-national interest/orders) so let's hope NZG does not leave this too long down the track.

Having said this I do share your concern that there appears to be currently (apparently) no current ASuW capability so again NZG must prioritise the likes of the LRSAM (and greenlight NZDF-ADF planning coordination etc).

(Well unless ... the NZDF craftily acquires (or already has acquired?) a limited number of older Harpoons cheaply from eg ex-USN stocks as an interim capability? Kind of like how NZDF currently does with refurbished ex-USN Mk 46's to extend their use until a formal replacement project is initiated. The earlier unnamed torpedo replacement project in the 2000's was for the MU-90 but suspect once NZDF became aware of the limitations as the ADF found out once they received them (and eg couldn't install them on RAAF aircraft - this would have been problematic too for NZ's P-3K's & SH-2G(NZ)'s at the time) so the project didn't go ahead and instead refurbishment was sought as a stopgap measure. So again for next year's defence review we need to see whether the remaining Mk 46's on the ANZAC's are to be replaced with the Mk 54. I think we can assume they will as surely NZ doesn't want to maintain 2 different torp types (like they didn't 10 or so years ago) and the refurbishment/end-of-life issue plus the fact the P-8A now has them should also assist the case).

Regarding the Penguin's a limited number was purchased (IIRC around 2 dozen - but can't locate the source for this now) and they were from (some of) the ex-ADF stocks so they are probably reaching end of life in the near future (the NZDF is talking about some test firing in 2024 so they must still be operational at the moment). Extremely unlikely to see them fitted on the P-8A's (I think that can be ruled out so let's do so). There is a Maritime Helicopter Replacement project in motion so whatever is chosen will more than likely field a replacement ASuM/torp capability.

It is thought the RNZN has (still) reserved space and weight for ASuM's on the ANZAC's so again we look to next year's defence review as to intent.

 

[Gracie1234]

The new Govt is in place. Judith Collins is the Minister of Defence, Minister Responsible for the GCSB, Minister Responsible for the NZSIS, Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology, and Minister for Space. That feels like a good combination to have within a portfolio.
Judith is a lady who gets stuff done so it will be interesting to see how she goes. I do not think she will just be sitting there.
Winston Peters is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I expect he will operate in a similar way as previously. He was quite direct about where he sees us sitting.

 

[Aluminium Hail]

From a quick look over the documents neither the ACT nor NZF agreements mention defence once.

Based on that I'd expect more of the status quo for the foreseeable future. (hopefully I'm proven wrong)

Link to newshub article with agreements at the bottom:

Foreign buyers' tax? Treaty referendum? Nats, ACT, NZ First's coalition agreement revealed

Incoming Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has also revealed his 2IC.

www.google.com

 

[recce.k1]

The new Govt is in place. Judith Collins is the Minister of Defence, Minister Responsible for the GCSB, Minister Responsible for the NZSIS, Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology, and Minister for Space. That feels like a good combination to have within a portfolio.
Judith is a lady who gets stuff done so it will be interesting to see how she goes. I do not think she will just be sitting there.
Winston Peters is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I expect he will operate in a similar way as previously. He was quite direct about where he sees us sitting.

Agree with you although personally would have liked Chris Penk to be DefMin, but notice he is a Minister outside of Cabinet (probably no room due to accommodating two coalition parties in Cabinet) whereas Collins is at the Cabinet table. But at least Chris Penk is the Associate Minister of Defence and it appears that the two of them get on so that's good in terms of having strong willed and hard working Ministers advocating for defence at the highest level.

Winston Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs (again) will strengthen NZ's relationship with its traditional allies as well as the Pacific Islands (expect he will be well received and well regarded by PI leadership, an important factor in these changing times).

(Although perhaps a pity there is no-one else in NZ First like they had previously with Ron Mark, who could then work with Peters to push things along)?

But on the whole it looks like the new NZG has put in place the building blocks for potentially proactive and successful Defence and Foreign Affairs outcomes and with Todd McClay as Minister for Trade largely on the same page IMO.

(Where is Mr C. is give us the detailed situational analysis)?

 

[recce.k1]

From a quick look over the documents neither the ACT nor NZF agreements mention defence once.

Based on that I'd expect more of the status quo for the foreseeable future. (hopefully I'm proven wrong)

Link to newshub article with agreements at the bottom:

Foreign buyers' tax? Treaty referendum? Nats, ACT, NZ First's coalition agreement revealed

Incoming Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has also revealed his 2IC.

www.google.com

I would say its early days as they will need to get the detailed briefings that the last Govt was privy to (and then await the formal reviews etc)?

But I would be more concerned that ACT, the biggest advocates for defence in the lead up to the election (with their membership), don't have anyone with roles related to the defence and foreign affairs porfolios. It means ACT membership will need to lean on their leader (and not forget to do so)! After all Seymour is in a highly privileged position to advocate for meaningful change and improvement.

 

[Gibbo]

Agree with you although personally would have liked Chris Penk to be DefMin, but notice he is a Minister outside of Cabinet (probably no room due to accommodating two coalition parties in Cabinet) whereas Collins is at the Cabinet table. But at least Chris Penk is the Associate Minister of Defence and it appears that the two of them get on so that's good in terms of having strong willed and hard working Ministers advocating for defence at the highest level.

Winston Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs (again) will strengthen NZ's relationship with its traditional allies as well as the Pacific Islands (expect he will be well received and well regarded by PI leadership, an important factor in these changing times).

(Although perhaps a pity there is no-one else in NZ First like they had previously with Ron Mark, who could then work with Peters to push things along)?

But on the whole it looks like the new NZG has put in place the building blocks for potentially proactive and successful Defence and Foreign Affairs outcomes and with Todd McClay as Minister for Trade largely on the same page IMO.

(Where is Mr C. is give us the detailed situational analysis)?

Yes good to see a senior & very experienced MP get the Defence portfolio & having her across GCSB & SIS. My only concern is the new Govt is going to rabidly look for spending cuts & has so far has downplayed concerns about China so I think the 2% GDP aspiration will remain just that for a while... also keen to see what the upcoming Defence review concludes and what the new Govt's response to that is. I don't expect much to change in their first term defence-wise but prepared to give them a go!

 

[recce.k1]

From a quick look over the documents neither the ACT nor NZF agreements mention defence once.

Based on that I'd expect more of the status quo for the foreseeable future. (hopefully I'm proven wrong)

Link to newshub article with agreements at the bottom:

Foreign buyers' tax? Treaty referendum? Nats, ACT, NZ First's coalition agreement revealed

Incoming Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has also revealed his 2IC.

www.google.com

Thanks for posting the agreements (they can also be found here in full), yeah it's the coalition parties "pet projects" or "populist" priorities (thank goodness they didn't slip in their secret plans for annexing the likes of Norfolk Island - Aussies would have paid us back "100% there for the taking" style ) rather than all policies, but from them some useful defence/resilience stuff:

Progress the detailed business case for a dry dock at Marsden Point to service domestic and international shipping needs and to support our Navy vessels, with investigation of funding options including commercial partnerships.

Excellent, plus NZF are no longer advocating for shifting the entire RNZN from Auckland to Whangarei - that means greater investment can be put into RNZN Devonport itself and for its personnel, now that its future is secure (previous Cabinet papers discuss this).

Investigate the reopening of Marsden Point Refinery. This includes establishing a Fuel Security Plan to safeguard our transport and logistics systems and emergency services from any international or domestic disruption.

Although not guaranteed it's better than the recent Govt's "do nothing" approach (and presumably new NZG would need to literally buy into this and it'll be expensive). Even if the existing fuel storage was expanded, that will be an improvement (and also expensive).

 

[Gracie1234]

I think we will see a lift in defence relatively quickly. Once the review is completed next year, it will then turn into a procurement plan over the next 10-15 years with a set budget. This will provide plenty of time to adjust the budget and the current 'financial crisis' will be over. Winston will lean us more closely to our traditional partners and will help boost the Pacific focus. He was leading our Pacific Reset last time he was Foreign Minister.

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks for posting the agreements (they can also be found here in full), yeah it's the coalition parties "pet projects" or "populist" priorities (thank goodness they didn't slip in their secret plans for annexing the likes of Norfolk Island - Aussies would have paid us back "100% there for the taking" style ) rather than all policies, but from them some useful defence/resilience stuff:

The planned annexation of Norfolk Island and Tasmania are OPSEC, so ssshhh.

Excellent, plus NZF are no longer advocating for shifting the entire RNZN from Auckland to Whangarei - that means greater investment can be put into RNZN Devonport itself and for its personnel, now that its future is secure (previous Cabinet papers discuss this).

Although not guaranteed it's better than the recent Govt's "do nothing" approach (and presumably new NZG would need to literally buy into this and it'll be expensive). Even if the existing fuel storage was expanded, that will be an improvement (and also expensive).

Actually, I think that DNB, Papakura MC, and Whenuapai should be shifted out of Auckland. It's long-term economics and retention of personnel. Auckland is just too expensive to live in.

On the fuel storage front, I read in one of the Coalition Agreement releases that an enquiry into NZ fuel security is part of the Coalition Agreement. That is a good move and much needed.

Judith "Crusher" Collins as DEFMIN is a really good move. She is arguably the most experienced Minister (alongside Big Gerry [Brownlee]) in the current National Party Caucus. She has picked up a heavy workload, but she'll do it justice (no pun intended). Having Chris Penk as her Associate Minister is a good move.

Yes @Gracie1234 Winston has always been a good Foreign Minister; it's a job that he excels at. I hope that there is a definite and large increase in the defence budget especially in the defence capital expenditure budget, with funding locked in for a 10 - 15 year period. Over a 15 year period, we actually need an annual capital expenditure budget of $3.3 billion per annum, plus annual inflation, with unused funds being rolled over. This funding should be ring fenced.

Yes good to see a senior & very experienced MP get the Defence portfolio & having her across GCSB & SIS. My only concern is the new Govt is going to rabidly look for spending cuts & has so far has downplayed concerns about China so I think the 2% GDP aspiration will remain just that for a while... also keen to see what the upcoming Defence review concludes and what the new Govt's response to that is. I don't expect much to change in their first term defence-wise but prepared to give them a go!

It's a given that National is addicted to expenditure cuts, and they love cutting from defence because they perceive little political risk. This time around with both ACT and NZ First in Coalition, they may have significant opposition from within the Coalition to any suggestions of defence cuts. National can't risk having to rule as a minority govt because they don't have enough seats to safely do so.

From a quick look over the documents neither the ACT nor NZF agreements mention defence once.

Based on that I'd expect more of the status quo for the foreseeable future. (hopefully I'm proven wrong)

Link to newshub article with agreements at the bottom:

Foreign buyers' tax? Treaty referendum? Nats, ACT, NZ First's coalition agreement revealed

Incoming Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has also revealed his 2IC.

www.google.com

Defence isn't a real concern amongst the voters and never has been, except in times of war. However, behind the scenes, I think that both ACT & NZ First will be active WRT defence. Luxon talked of a mini budge before Xmas, but don't expect any increase in defence spending. They will wait until the review has finished and they have had a chance to analyse it.

 

[ngatimozart]

It appears that NZ foreign policy is in for a shakeup with a more pro US and Ukrainian foreign policy. Winston Peters is back as foreign minister, and it is likely that he will take a similar line to the one he took when he was foreign minister in the 2017 - 2020 Coalition govt with Labour as the major partner. Note that Ardern wasn't overly happy with the direction he took.
Winston Peters thinks NZ, US could do more together to advance interests | Newshub This is originally a Reuters story.

So it looks like a reset on the US, Gaza, Ukraine, and AUKUS from the previous Labour govts positions on all. Uncle Helun Clarke is spitting tacks, spitting the dummy, and tossing all of her toys out of the cot over it. We are well aware that she has an anti US, Israel, and Australian stance; something she's had for 50 odd years.
Geoffrey Miller: New Zealand’s foreign policy resets on AUKUS, Gaza and Ukraine | Newshub

This article surfaced over the weekend and whilst there are some of us who vehemently oppose its suppositions, it is a discussion that does have to be had in the wider NZ community. Personally I find it unbalanced and designed to plug a book. It doesn't discuss the current geopolitical and geostrategic environment at all. It is just an item that presumes a perfect world, ignoring the real world situation.
Richard Jackson: Does NZ really need its defence force? | RNZ

 

[Todjaeger]

This article surfaced over the weekend and whilst there are some of us who vehemently oppose its suppositions, it is a discussion that does have to be had in the wider NZ community. Personally I find it unbalanced and designed to plug a book. It doesn't discuss the current geopolitical and geostrategic environment at all. It is just an item that presumes a perfect world, ignoring the real world situation.
Richard Jackson: Does NZ really need its defence force? | RNZ

Did a quick read thru of the article and I agree, it does appear to be plugging a book. Based upon the content of the article, I suspect the book itself is not really worth reading since it seems to be at least partially a fantasy book. I did find the comment about NZDF having a primary role and goal of being able to fight in an actual war, or that the NZDF's primary training is for actual combat. I feel the appropriate response to that is NSS, and it does rather make me suspect that the author and likely the target readership is or has become somewhat divorced from reality.

I do agree with the comments about the rather poor success rates of UN missions, but I also feel obligated to point out that past NZ gov'ts, particularly those who tended to repeatedly assert that NZ had a benign strategic environment, also tended to be strong proponents of NZDF involvement in UN missions. These tended to be the same gov'ts which seemed to place so much value and/or claimed 'bragging rights' for NZ being a global 'good citizen'. IIRC during one of these occasions back in the mid to late 00's, something like 10% of the NZDF was away on UN deployments, just under 1,000 personnel spread across 27 different UN deployments around the globe. This was at a time when these many int'l deployments was starting to break the NZDF because there were so many personnel deployed that conducting unit training was rather difficult because there was just never enough personnel in one area at a time for all the skills to be maintained.

Absent more info though, it does seem as though the authors want to deal in ideals, as opposed to actual, real world practical considerations.

 

[Rob c]

The major problem I see with this article is that the Author does not understand the primary role of a defence force and the reason that the vast majority of countries have defence forces. That reason is to maintain that countries freedom and sovereignty. He goes on that there are other options for security but provides nothing but some waffle, Nothing he says gives us any guarantees on retaining our sovereignty. However unfortunately our pollies have not grasped this either and would prefer to spend money on re-election as apposed to making sure we have a free and sovereign country to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

 

[JohnJT]

Apparently three NZDF contracts have been issued for Unmanned Aerial Systems.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735426010240401495

 

[recce.k1]

Apparently three NZDF contracts have been issued for Unmanned Aerial Systems.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735426010240401495

This is one of the announcements - Quantum Systems Inc to provide mid-endurance "Vector fixed-wing eVTOL uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) and Though-Life Support and Training". And according to your quoted tweet, they will be for 16 Field Regiment.

Quantum-Systems Inc. Signs Master Supply Agreement with New Zealand Ministry of Defence | Macau Business

PR Newswire | MOORPARK, Calif., Dec. 15, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- Quantum

www.macaubusiness.com

Vector

quantumdrones.com

Edit: more info on the MoD website.

Defence to receive remote ground sensors and uncrewed aircraft systems | Ministry of Defence website

www.defence.govt.nz

 

[ngatimozart]

NZDF has "lost more than 36 percent of its full time uniformed personnel since April 2021."

Defence personnel crisis 'extremely concerning', says minister

Four key vessels are docked, planes and helicopters are grounded by the loss of one in three trained staff, and NZ may have to ask for help from Australia to deploy troops. Oscar Francis reports.

newsroom.co.nz

This is very concerning with the RNZN being described as hollow. This doesn't surprise me because personnel have been voting with their feet because of pay, conditions, and the Covid-19 deployment. Morale is low and the senior leadership being positioned being between a rock and a hard place by the pollies. It is time that both pollies and senior defence leadership realise that they have to look after their people much better than they are currently doing. Historically pollies and senior defence leadership have been quite poor a looking after our defence people. I realise that the ADF, and the other FVEY have recruitment and retention problems, but I think that NZDF is currently the worse off. In fact, NZDF pay and conditions are the poorest of all the FVEY militaries. Another problem is that two of the C-130H Hercules have been retired, leaving us only three. This is because of pollies continued practice of delaying acquisitions. I don't know how the RAN is going to help the TNZN with crewing because the RAN has its own, not insignificant, crew retention problems.