NZDF General discussion thread

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
Just the same old,same old from National budget cuts in a roundabout way yet again. I was hoping for a more proactive approach!
It's the same old National Govt of Budget cuts!! and "Lets rob Peter to pay Paul".
Well it is no surprise, their signals were quite clear before the election. At least now both major parties accept the NZDF is in dire straits...wonder of the Aussies have had a quiet word about 'responsibilities'.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well it is no surprise, their signals were quite clear before the election. At least now both major parties accept the NZDF is in dire straits...wonder of the Aussies have had a quiet word about 'responsibilities'.
Yes, I think the hard word was put on C.L. on his visit to Australia and was the reason for his mention of defence in the speech he gave at the time. Hopefully they keep up the pressure:cool:
 

Xthenaki

Active Member
I hope the Aussies have given us a serve on reality especially if shit is to the fan. Im pretty sure both Winston and Judith are now on the page and will be working to progressively bring our defence force back to life with realistic support. What I would have liked to have seen is the inclusion of the Labour party to give continuity to big defence projects over their lifetime but sadly they are not fitting into the equation as they are a bunch of pacifists. (In my view)
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
What I would have liked to have seen is the inclusion of the Labour party to give continuity to big defence projects over their lifetime but sadly they are not fitting into the equation as they are a bunch of pacifists. (In my view)
Agree, whilst the Opposition is privy to Govt intelligence briefings, unclear if this extends to defence and security briefings (doesn't appear to be)?

If so ideally have the largest Opposition party leader (in this case Labour) briefed where practical and vice-versa. (Otherwise they will revert back to opposing for the sake of opposing nevermind principles).

Also if the Govt has the smarts, involve former Labour leader/defence/intelligence minister Andrew Little with the Govt's defence/security planning. (Unless there is a reason not to, but of all the now Opposition politicians he has generally managed his roles with a straight bat and is a realist).

I would say most of the issues Defence has/had over the years (funding/roles/etc) can be traced back to the lack of bipartisan support between the two main parties. This needs to be fixed.
 

jbc388

Member
Well it is no surprise, their signals were quite clear before the election. At least now both major parties accept the NZDF is in dire straits...wonder of the Aussies have had a quiet word about 'responsibilities'.
Yes I hope the Aussies have a quiet word about pulling our weight! rather than the Pacifist stance that was taken by the Labour/Green Government. Which has along with the last 30 years of lack of funding,bipartisan agreements etc has just about finished the NZDF being able to do the roles that they are needed to be able to do!
The problem I can see now occuring with the 3 way coalition government is ACT/NZ First wanting to start to repair the damage to the NZDF but National dragging the chain due to not wanting to spend the $$$ needed! and I think that NZ is running out of time to repair the damage due to the state of the world these days!
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately Andrew Little did not seek reelection and am not aware of a suitable replacement ( Definitely NOT - Peeni Henare )
Ahh I wasn't clear - yes no longer an MP but as an external expert eg in the same way Labour uses former National PM Bolger for "calming the farm" amongst the Right by giving some credibility etc. And perhaps by involving Little an additional benefit is that it could do the same for the Labour Left & MSM (well the Centre-Left at least).

Anyway in other news the briefings to the incoming ministers:
Defence
It was well-forecast that agencies needed to make budget cuts but military leaders have told the new Minister of Defence Judith Collins it needs money.

Collins was told there was short-term and medium to long-term investment needed - first to stabilise NZDF and then to grow it. That means better pay and conditions for those who serve, and an upgrade of NZDF’s run #down real estate portfolio.

That’s against a back-drop - Collins was told - of increasing strategic competition in the region and an expectation of increasingly serious climate events. Despite those looming and serious issue, the briefing to Collins said “the most significant issue facing Defence right now is high levels of attrition and lower retention”.

High levels of attrition had slowed but were expected to continue for some time, she was told. The consequence, the briefing said, was the impact on NZDF’s ability to do the jobs government wanted it to do. Not only were experienced staff needed for those jobs, they were also required to introduce new equipment - such as the P8 Poseidon surveillance aircraft - and to train the next generation of service personnel.

In terms of scale, the Minister was told 30 per cent of uniformed personnel had left in 20 months to February 2023. In terms of numbers, the briefing said NZDF was 1300 uniformed personnel short. Its current numbers - based on an OIA release to the Herald - was around 8200 people in uniform.


There were a range of efforts to fix the problem, including increasing pay to bring 91 per cent of staff within 5 per cent of the market median and to review outdated benefits to compensate for military service, such as extended time at sea.

A snapshot of services showed attrition had impacted each: the Navy had three ships tied up; Army had “limited capacity” to respond to disaster or security events at scale and “very limited capacity” to deal with multiple events; Air force “has a number of capacity shortfalls”.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
Judith Collins refers to maximizing procurement opportunities.

I wonder what she is referring to??
It is probably not much more than political spin and largely will cover small stuff like uniforms & stationary for now :rolleyes:. It can't be denied there must be significant investment once the NZDF has retention & recruitment issues under control (and with recruit upskilling required this could take up to 5 years if Govt is prepared to throw $$$ at it) but we have to also wait for the upcoming Defence review to be published & chewed over by the Govt ...the review will likely be pretty much a 'rinse & repeat' of the last one albeit with a few notable changes & maybe the odd surprise (NB: this is just my own view & not hearsay) ...but when it does come to specific military equipment procurement each project will always as a matter of course look at synergies with allies (a.k.a. 'maximizing procurement opportunities')...always have & always will!
 
Last edited:

Xthenaki

Active Member
I dont share your pessimism at the moment although historically you are correct. If our ANZ relationship blossoms I see it as a no brainer with very positive outcomes for both nations. At the moment the No 1 priority is retention of manpower for both nations. Then for NZ we need to look at our inventory and decide what we retain and what has to go. Aussie turfed out the Taipan helo because it wasnt performing to their requirements and standards. We need to do the same now with some of our obsolete items (Protector fleet/LAVs) If they carnt be upgraded dont waste good money maintaining them in reserve or at substandard readiness. We need to retain our main core items and with the white paper due and a meaningful ANZ relationship progress to build on that with what we need - short/medium and long term.
 

Gracie1234

Well-Known Member
I am more optimistic. The fact that the PM has said that health, education and defense will see a budget increase in the next FY. When has that happened that defence is in with the core services as a priority for an increase. I would also say that the 2 plus 2 meeting shows the priority and Judith is a woman who gets stuff done. I would also suggest that AUKUS pillar to 2 will include us as our space capability is of huge value and we can contribute in other areas. This will be a revenue generator as well so will tick a number of boxes.
ANZAC frigate version 2 anyone? I would presume that large items will get aligned between us as standardisation will be the name of the game.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I am more optimistic. The fact that the PM has said that health, education and defense will see a budget increase in the next FY. When has that happened that defence is in with the core services as a priority for an increase. I would also say that the 2 plus 2 meeting shows the priority and Judith is a woman who gets stuff done. I would also suggest that AUKUS pillar to 2 will include us as our space capability is of huge value and we can contribute in other areas. This will be a revenue generator as well so will tick a number of boxes.
ANZAC frigate version 2 anyone? I would presume that large items will get aligned between us as standardisation will be the name of the game.
Australian built equipment is very expensive, Australia gets major offsets by building our own equipment, in taxes, job creation, money flowing into the economy etc. Another nation buying that same equipment from Australian factories/shipyards is not going to get those offsets, and we simply could not compete with the Korean or Eastern European shipyards.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Absolutely - especially the Hunter program. But I see things in a different light if we were as an example to buy with Australia M60 helos, more P8's or C130J-30 aircraft from the US.
NZ does have a requirement for a Seasprite replacement fairly soon, and TBH it comes down to 3 choices, NFH-90, AW-159 Wildcat and the MH-60R. Unless NZ decides to go with the NFH-90 a purchase of 4-6 MH-60R and 8-10 UH-60M would make a lot of sense, for working not only with Australia but the US as well.
I can see a lot of room for Australia and NZ to combine trg streams on both the P-8A the C-130J and if it is chosen the MH-60R. Trg requirements on the P-8 is especially high due to the large aircrew required, surely a combined trg centre at RAAF Edinburgh with NZ providing a cadre of staff would make more sense.
 

Alberto32

Member
Absolutely - especially the Hunter program. But I see things in a different light if we were as an example to buy with Australia M60 helos, more P8's or C130J-30 aircraft from the US.
If we're going to do that, may as well look at a purchase for a fleet of Chinooks. Seeing as Australia already has experience with them, we can send Airforce staff to Australia to train on them, instead of going to the USA.
 
Top