NZDF General discussion thread

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
My own view is that the government would like to join AUKUS, if the can get away with it with the least political damage. The reason being that they can then be involved in a defence structure without having to actually spend any money on our armed forces, which are hopelessly underfunded. They can say that they are pro defence without doing anything about our own defence.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
My own view is that the government would like to join AUKUS, if the can get away with it with the least political damage. The reason being that they can then be involved in a defence structure without having to actually spend any money on our armed forces, which are hopelessly underfunded. They can say that they are pro defence without doing anything about our own defence.
Given the recent history of NZ and Canada defence investment I doubt either country would be particularly welcomed. Both countries are lucky to remain in the 5eye club.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
More signals that change is coming. Foreign Minister Winston Peters delivers an address to the NZ Institute of International Affairs, covering foreign policy, security and AUKUS P2 (and gives a robust smack down to the agenda driven uninformed critics of AUKUS P2).

Whist defence is not the Foreign Minister's primary domain he did make an "interesting" comment that:

"New Zealand’s long history of parsimony when it comes to defence cannot hold if we wish to continue garnering respect from, and influence on, others".


I won't bother linking to MSM articles on his speech only because they cannot fully emphasise the points and detail he covered. So for those that are interested here is his speech.

 
Last edited:

Teal

Active Member
'Not good enough': Defence Force staff left stranded in Antarctica for a month Stuff

Latest negative news on the NZDF.
Sadely we all know RTNZ dates and times are a moving feast from all overseas missions, this is not new , noting the location and the means of transport its no surprise. My only thought is if NZ wants to take activities on the ice seriously , we need to aquire a platform that can conduct a return trip on one tank , C2 would be good , dreaming i know.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
we need to aquire a platform that can conduct a return trip on one tank , C2 would be good , dreaming i know.
KC-46 may also be a worthy contender? (It has been suggested here before by a couple of the mods, with Antarctic ops in mind).

(Acquire a long range true multi-role transport/tanker and enabler and lookee-here it also does VIP .... oops we weren't thinking of ourselves say the pollies, honest guv)!
 

Teal

Active Member
KC-46 may also be a worthy contender? (It has been suggested here before by a couple of the mods, with Antarctic ops in mind).

(Acquire a long range true multi-role transport/tanker and enabler and lookee-here it also does VIP .... oops we weren't thinking of ourselves say the pollies, honest guv)!
I agree, dream option is C2 , the KC46 would be a great 757 replacement , the variety of fit outs, a cargo door plus being a comms link/node and then a tanker. Air NZ have a wealth of experience too.
The KC30 is just to big for little old NZ
 

Attachments

Last edited:

RegR

Well-Known Member
'Not good enough': Defence Force staff left stranded in Antarctica for a month Stuff

Latest negative news on the NZDF.
Sadely we all know RTNZ dates and times are a moving feast from all overseas missions, this is not new , noting the location and the means of transport its no surprise. My only thought is if NZ wants to take activities on the ice seriously , we need to aquire a platform that can conduct a return trip on one tank , C2 would be good , dreaming i know.
Not really sure range is a game changer especially if it is just to suit Antarctica. Either way a full tankload still does not change the weather so no point flying all the way down there just to turn around vs half way. It would be different I guess if we didn't have people, technology and infrastructure already down there to make the D on "weather" or not to land beforehand. If it was such an issue the US would only use C-17, but even they use C-130 and they still have the same issues, or should I say consideration.

A KC46 would surely have the same cut off date as the 757, ie earlier, and I doubt it's range related.

I also think whoever this person who was in "contact" is being alittle precious and should be more than well aware before they left of possible delays on any deployment, but Antarctica especially as it is very much weather dependant. Along with the supposed information updates which I find again alittle off as what did he expect, a direct line to the pilots?

You can actually follow the comings and goings of these particular aircraft on the Canterbury planespotters page and they were almost routinely turning back, C-17s included, so delays in flights are actually not as uncommon as people seem to think and they do not just become "reliable" for aero-medical events and breakdown every other time, although breakdowns are still a factor of life. Infact that C-17 mentioned in the article WAS the broken down aircraft and they had to wait for a part which took a few days and the RNZAF C130 went in the meantime (for the aero) as the US hercs had already left.

Point is I just don't think we need to base our military aircraft on essentially a civilian mission as IMO they are there to support, which is nice to have but this is why we have a joint support operation with the US and share resources not essentially duplicate them.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
oint is I just don't think we need to base our military aircraft on essentially a civilian mission as IMO they are there to support, which is nice to have but this is why we have a joint support operation with the US and share resources not essentially duplicate them.
Totally agree with this point, However the aircraft mentioned (C2-KC 46) would definitely add to our ability to position and support army operations in our area and would boost our logistical abilities overall.
As a side note has anyone seen the range payload of our new C130Js as fitted with under wing tanks? As it appears that we may be the first to have them.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Totally agree with this point, However the aircraft mentioned (C2-KC 46) would definitely add to our ability to position and support army operations in our area and would boost our logistical abilities overall.
As a side note has anyone seen the range payload of our new C130Js as fitted with under wing tanks? As it appears that we may be the first to have them.
This article link claims an extra 4 hours of flying but no load specs are mentioned so range can only be guessed at but 1,000-1200 miles minimum seems reasonable.

 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If these are the same tanks as fitted to the H I remember installing them after a servicing at base Auckland in the late 1960's and they were marked as a bit over 1300 US gallons each. If my memory is any good:cool:
It was a hell of a job due to the extreme torque settings for the attachment bolts. The new sockets supplied di not hack it and split, we reverted to gnarly old King Dicks to complete the job, they did not break.;)
 
Last edited:

Hawkeye69

Member
I see our PM on Sky News Australia talking about this and that and he brought up how NZDF will now be working for commonality of platforms with Australia, so one wonders when the MH-60R Seahawk will get the green light. I see a big push for the Wildcat but it goes against the commonality with Australia and it’s got the European factor and we have had great success with proven US products, the Texan, P-8A and C-130J as examples and I am sure that will be well considered even if the cost makes a few faint feeling.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Finance Minister interviewed by the Australian Associated Press.

Defence budget boost as New Zealand looks to 'step-up'.
By Ben McKay.

New Zealand will boost funding for both defence and foreign affairs in its upcoming budget, in a move likely to please its international partners.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis will come good on campaign pledges to shrink the public service and right-size the government when she unveils the budget on May 30. With the government books in structural deficit, the country’s new government led by Chris Luxon has ordered agency chiefs to find savings of around seven per cent, with full cuts to be revealed on budget day.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Forces (NZDF) have not been exempt from the cost-saving exercise, but Ms Willis told AAP the grouping would see an budget boost on top of any efficiency dividend.

"We have a view that New Zealand’s presence on the world stage is incredibly important and also that we are living in a less benign geostrategic environment" she said. "There are real challenges to global peace and security and it’s going to be appropriate that we step up our defence capability".

Without giving firm details across agencies, Ms Willis said both capital and operational spending would be increased. Further boosts in future budgets also appear to be assured, particularly for defence. Defence Minister Judith Collins is currently preparing New Zealand’s latest Defence Capability Plan, which will spell out defence force needs through to 2040.

Given the NZDF’s high attrition - which has seen almost half its navy fleet grounded - as well as ageing equipment and infrastructure issues, the need to invest is well understood.

"Until we’ve got that (Capability Plan) we don’t want to be making the big investments, but even so there are some obvious investments that we’re making this budget" Ms Willis said.

The previous year’s total foreign affairs budget was $NZ2.2 billion ($A2 billion), with defence spending just under $NZ5.3 billion ($A4.8 billion). Ms Willis, of the centre-right National party that is the biggest coalition member, will have pleased junior parties ACT and NZ First with the move. Both ACT and NZ First campaigned on lifting defence spending to two per cent of GDP. It is currently a little more than one per cent.

Ms Willis has committed to a lift, though she isn’t sold on a particular benchmark. "We shouldn’t just blindly go for a percentage. What’s most important is that we invest in the right capability" she said, arguing for interoperability with partners. "They want to see that we can work well with their forces, that we’re complimentary to what they’re doing and what they have" she said. "The most important contribution we can make is to think carefully through what those requirements are".

That’s likely to be music to the ears of Australia, given Canberra’s eagerness to partner with Wellington on challenges in the region. The interoperability goal follows a pledge earlier in 2024 by Ms Collins, who told AAP it’s really important that New Zealand not be a freeloader on regional defence. In a major foreign policy address on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Winston Peters said New Zealand’s long history of parsimony needed to end if we wish to continue garnering respect, citing a more dangerous world.

Ms Willis agrees, recalling her dining company at a gathering of finance ministers on a recent trip to Washington DC. "On one side, I had the Ukrainian finance minister who is in an existential battle for the future of his country she said. On the other side, the Polish finance minister who was looking at spending four per cent of GDP on defence because he views the security of his nation as being potentially imperilled. The United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, our intelligence partners, are all concerned about where conflict will go in our world over the next few years and its implications for trade, implications for security and peace. It’s very sobering and I’m very conscious of it".

Finance Minister also interviewed by Newstalk ZB today.

ZB: How much are you going to boost funding for defence in the budget. Is it quite substantial?

Willis: It'll be a modest uplift in this budget, and that's because we are still completing the Defence Capability Review, which is a very important step in terms of working out what are the big bits of kit, what are the big capabilities, we need to be good partners to those countries that we have defence relationship with, what capability do they want us to have, and then, once we've got that clear and we've got a view out to 2040.

Then let's systematically make those big investments. But for this budget there are some obvious investments, we need to make to uplift the Defence Force, but they will be modest.

ZB: As the Finance Minister. Is it your goal to lift it to a standard where our ally who is never happy with how much we're spending will be happy with how much we're spending in the long term or the medium term.

Willis: My goal is that New Zealand is a good partner to those countries we depend on for peace and security. but also that when one of our pacific nation friends need us, that we can be there, so that if there's a cyclone or something terrible happens, we're able to be there with the right equipment to be supportive.

And that also, we're providing capability that helps the countries we're working with. And you know, we have some areas of expertise. Be that space be that monitoring our part of the ocean. And so we need to make sure we've got the modern equipment and skills to do those jobs.
So in summary small steps forward at this point in time when the Budget is released at the end of the month.

Future investments and real improvements to be articulated by the Defence Capability Review when it is released in June.

The extent of which will be dependent on future defence expenditure settings ...
 

Gracie1234

Well-Known Member
Interesting day with $500 million announced for defence to increase pay and replace the transport fleet.
Minister Collins said it would be nice to get defence funding to 2% of GDP when asked. Of note she did not say that was too much or that we would not get there. Different that the previous Minister.
Labour did not make an issue of the additional funding either!
Confirmation that the defence capability plan will be at Cabinet next month, I guess once they agree on it, it will be released to the public. Timeframe covers from now until 2040. I would expect to see some pretty transformative things as this is the era of the largest changes in warfare since the aircraft.
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
She looks awkward on the one news video talking to soldiers. makes you miss Mark.
much of the coverage has been about replacing the Unimogs and pinzgauer fleets.
Dumb question: can someone please explain why we are still running these vehicles as I thought the 200 or so MHOVs were unimog replacements at least.
Why are we running two concurrent fleets of military trucks? (Mogs & MHOVs)
NZDF and media coverage of local and pacific HADR ops shows unimogs traversing floodwateres etc.
I appreciate their extra height and fording capability over the MHOVs.
Apologies if this has allready been explained.

What has been reported as the cloud based service for maritime domain awareness sounds promising.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
She looks awkward on the one news video talking to soldiers. makes you miss Mark.
much of the coverage has been about replacing the Unimogs and pinzgauer fleets.
Dumb question: can someone please explain why we are still running these vehicles as I thought the 200 or so MHOVs were unimog replacements at least.
Why are we running two concurrent fleets of military trucks? (Mogs & MHOVs)
NZDF and media coverage of local and pacific HADR ops shows unimogs traversing floodwateres etc.
I appreciate their extra height and fording capability over the MHOVs.
Apologies if this has allready been explained.

What has been reported as the cloud based service for maritime domain awareness sounds promising.
The MHOVs replaced the operational side of the truck fleet and the remaining garrison portion of the fleet is slowly (very slowly at that) being replaced now including the remaining unimog, 2228 and specialist fleets. DF is finally realised trying to have a larger 1/2 type fleet to cover all roles dosent actually work and actually 3/4/5 more tailored fleets better fits the increased roles more suitably and also more cost effectively.

The ability to then drag out the overall fleet replacement in stages and over years is also a bonus in terms of overall cost but the remaining mogs are still in dire need of replacement as they were deemed to be 20 years ago so nothing has changed in that regard. It has actually taken so long now the "new" trucks are a decade old already. The wheel is definately turning very slowly on this project that's for sure!
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
The MHOVs replaced the operational side of the truck fleet and the remaining garrison portion of the fleet is slowly (very slowly at that) being replaced now including the remaining unimog, 2228 and specialist fleets. DF is finally realised trying to have a larger 1/2 type fleet to cover all roles dosent actually work and actually 3/4/5 more tailored fleets better fits the increased roles more suitably and also more cost effectively.

The ability to then drag out the overall fleet replacement in stages and over years is also a bonus in terms of overall cost but the remaining mogs are still in dire need of replacement as they were deemed to be 20 years ago so nothing has changed in that regard. It has actually taken so long now the "new" trucks are a decade old already. The wheel is definately turning very slowly on this project that's for sure!
I see the Govt press release states:
Military operational vehicles:This project begins the replacement of NZDF’s most deployed vehicles – the 40-year-old Unimogs and Pinzgauer trucks. Widely used to carry personnel and equipment and provide off-road mobility when working with regional and global partners offshore, and closer to home during events such as support to the Cyclone Gabrielle response, these replacement vehicles will also provide modern, integrated communications to enhance interoperability with partner nations.
Nice to see but do you have a view on garrison vehicles needing integrated/interoperable comms etc (or do you think they may also be deployed ... into threat scenarios rather than HADR as the Press release implies? After all as you note the existing deployable MHOV's are now around a decade old already, so perhaps utilising the soon-to-be obtained replacements gives Defence some flexibility when it comes to operational deployments etc)?
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I see the Govt press release states:


Nice to see but do you have a view on garrison vehicles needing integrated/interoperable comms etc (or do you think they may also be deployed ... into threat scenarios rather than HADR as the Press release implies? After all as you note the existing deployable MHOV's are now around a decade old already, so perhaps utilising the soon-to-be obtained replacements gives Defence some flexibility when it comes to operational deployments etc)?
In terms of the trucks (all vehicles actually) it all comes down to the threat level for any particular mission as to what is then employed/deployed. Afghanistan would have different operational requirements to say the Solomons therefore the vehicles deployed can be adjusted accordingly. The operational fleet can be/is uparmoured due to risk, the garrison fleet not so much as there is generally no requirement and are literally peacetime logistics. The garrison fleet does not generally have comms at all bar the spec vehicles as a requirement and even then are not military grade rather civilian ie non crypto shorter range off the shelf commercial and are more a safety feature than security if anything. Military radios have different power, security and usage considerations vs the vastly cheaper and simple civilian radios that are literally just bolted in where it fits.

It all comes down to cost as there is no point having high spec military grade equipment/vehicles to do low end basic support and vice versa although they have obvious crossovers (transports transport) to certain degrees. Quantity vs quality is a balancing act in any organisation, ours even more so with ever decreasing fleets and funding.

Just wish they would get on with it as the mogs and 22s especially are not getting any younger, more reliable or less costly to maintain.
 
Top