I think the statement that there would be little public opposition is rather optimistic. If you asked the people of Dunedin whether they would prefer to reestablish a ACF or have the public hospital they believe they are entitled to, I think the answer is predictable and fairly obvious. If you were to ask the general public on Queen St, which do you think is a better investment for NZ - another couple of P8 (and the modest increase in personnel) plus missiles, or a new ACF with significant increase in personnel, training and maintenance costs - I'd be happy to bet my house on the answer.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
I share your empathy for the people of Dunedin and the whole southern area with their need for a decent public hospital. But what is being talked about here is the need to have an effective defence force to assist in defending our sovereign nation. While both Health and Defence are absolutely in need of additional funding we have to look at the most effective way we use additional defence spending because the increase to around 2 pc of GDP that the govt is mooting will still be insufficient in the short term. Wanton waste spending by Western governments seems to be the order of the day especially has been in NZ.
I'm not denying the need to lift defence spending - I spent too long in Canberra and Washington at the sharp end of criticism from our 'friends' to be so naive to think the status quo is alright. What I'm questioning is the statement that re-establishing an ACF won't face significant push back in the electorate.
As much as I may wish that the Clarke government hadn't cancelled the F16 and fantasise about an RNZAF with a modern ACF it is simply that - fantasy. The rationalist that I am accepts that even with a 2% of GDP spend (which is not a slam dunk in the electorate regardless of what this forum may think) there will still be internal trade-offs. For politicians presenting to the NZ electorate, foregoing (in the minds of most NZers it's not a sacrifice as it doesn't exist) an ACF is easy if the alternate is better conditions of service and better personnel retention, more P8's, more capable naval force (including a southern ocean capability) or any number of defence items that can be spun as improving defence and capabilities like HADR. As much as we may all hate it, ACF is likely seen in the electorate as an expensive luxury. Even between the services I imagine there is debate about the real need for ACF.
Fair comment. Your alternative is a Defence priority and has to be addressed now. The ACF reinstatement will always be subject to robust debate and will only be an option when it is given majority support and adequate funding. The naval replacements will take time to evolve and hopefully that will be explained on release of the upcoming defence review.
This would not be the way, Actually most defence capital funding is done by loans or paid off incrementally. A poll conducted 3 or 4 years back ask should we have an AFC and it got a positive over 70% yes. The point in question is, do you want to defend NZ or just paper over the cracks? If it is paper over the cracks then don't go for an ACF, which I suspect is were the government will go. An ACF is the logical choice if you really want to defend NZ as it gives the necessary quick all around coverage of both sea and air and has a significant deterrent effect.
Last edited:
The upcoming defence capibility review will most likely just "paper over the cracks", leaving the major issues unanswered!! I am really hoping that this government has had it's a@#$ kicked by the Chinese ships and probable sub!! in the last 2 weeks being so close to NZ. will result in some well thought out answers to the major problems/issues the NZDF have!!
2 x Frigates just can't cope having to in multiple places at once!!
4 x P-8's again too few in number!! plus not even usefull in the anti surface warfare side of things with no antiship missiles!!
2 x Frigates just can't cope having to in multiple places at once!!
4 x P-8's again too few in number!! plus not even usefull in the anti surface warfare side of things with no antiship missiles!!
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
In this day and age I still stand by my belief. And you still stand by your belief. Which is great, it makes for good debate, so let's agree to disagree.
You may very well be right. But it's also a red-herring, one can grab example X and compare with example Y and never the twain shall meet. At the end of the day the GOTD spent $180b during the last financial year so there are no shortage of funds for many important things that Kiwi's require. The cost of the Dunedin hospital rebuild project is currently $1.88b so it's a happening thing.
Vote Health is $30b, Vote Education is $20b, whereas Vote Defence is $5b or 10% of Health and Education. Yes everyone wants more/needs more, absolutely. But defence funding settings were designed to increase when there is a need, that's the 1980's/90's "neo-liberal" reforms in action for better or worse, it also meant when where there wasn't a need then defence funding was reduced, well it's pay back time for defence now according to the system architecture. So how best to invest, is the question. DCP will provide some answers.
I'll wager a bet that next to no-one (ok maybe one or two) would know what a P-8 was! All kidding aside I understand what you are saying and I am in agreement. The first priority is to improve what one has now, before moving on to other "nice-to-haves".
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Fully agree. What little we do know (DCP wise) is that the Govt has signaled that the replacement of the RNZN Fleet (except the AOR) is being planned.
But you have noted the key point that "naval replacements will take time to evolve". Can we wait until the mid-2030's to have two combatants and non-milspec OPV's replaced? Judging by events in the Tasman Sea recently surely the answer is "no we can't" but realsitically we will have to. Presumably then we can expect to see some further improvements for the Frigates and OPV's but will they be enough and what about the issue of "mass" in the meantime? What happens when an ANZAC is deployed into the Indo-Pac region and an "unfriendly" task -force decides to make an appearance? Or two task-forces? Or three?
Wonder if there is a "Plan B" to acquire additional patrol or combat capabilities as soon as possible i.e. before 2030 (which also gives time for personnel recruitment and training)? But it is known that it will be difficult to obtain new builds before then (if next to impossible from Australia, the UK or potentially Japan). But maybe Germany or Spain? If so that would likely mean zero interoperability wih the RAN and USN.
The only vessels that are potentially available now (i.e. perhaps as an interim solution until 2030-2035) are a 3-letter obscenity to anyone else on this forum. Apparently some are available (to Greece anyway) for US$50m ea but will require additional $Xm (??) ea spent to repair existing propulsion system issues. Just what the $Xm amount is I'm not sure. But hypothetically would they make adequate additional (slightly lower tier) capability for sea-lane protection and for shadowing "unfriendlies" projecting themselves into the South Pacific? As opposed to getting into a fight I mean. And at least interoperability won't be an issue. Might not be practical or a wise investment but just a thought, because what else is?
So we seem to be back in a pre-WW2 scenario in which time is running out (or actually has run out) to expand the navy (within the next 5 years anyway).
So if above was "Plan B", is there a "Plan C" i.e. additional P-8's and/or ACF? With Australia and NZ now facing being challenged in its "backyard" is it time to re-invent the solution that was used in the lead up to WW2 to provide a supplementary air/maritime presence and response? It could be possible to achieve IOC within 5 years (granted as the experts here say, we'll need at least 10 years for FOC).
We cannot forget the Army in all of this (it's the one service we discuss very little about here) and will presumably remain key in Govt planning (as boots on the ground is always needed). So there is the Army structure to consider but in terms to the issue of the PLAN of late, could there be a "Plan D" which would be to acquire air transportable land-based ASuW missile capability? Timing wise it may be the quickest solution and at least keep "unfriendlies" guessing where they could be deployed throughout the region (meaning they would have to avoid numerous chokepoints and potentially restricting their passage options). It would also mean interoperability with our Trans-Tasman neighbours. Land based anti-shipping systems can be by-passed of course (so wouldn't be "the" solution), but it would be another important tool in the toolkit.
Catalina
Active Member
Thank you for your thoughts. I understand you believe artillery is useful for NZ, I believe differently and that moving from a specialised artillery unit to a specialized drone warfare unit would be a better use of resources for both peace time and war time operations, and an easier sell to our public.
To support your position, would appreciate your answers to the following questions thank you.
We have a handful of short range towed L119 105mm light artillery pieces.
1. In what battlefield and against what enemy do you envisage NZ will actually use this artillery?
2. Do you imagine this artillery would be used for home defence of the North or South Island against a Chinese invasion? If so what prevents the Chinese from simply destroying our artillery with missile or drone strikes?
3. Do you imagine we will use our artillery in island warfare in the South Pacific? How do we transport our artillery to the islands and keep it supplied and serviced and safe from enemy attacks? In any Pacific Island war scenario enemy naval bombardment, let alone missile and drone strikes, can out range our artillery.
4. Do you imagine we will use our artillery in defence of the Australian a classic land war of attrition? If so, given that these are towed artillery pieces unable to move rapidly by themselves, how do we quickly reposition them to avoid enemy counterbattery fire? The Ukraine War has shown us the critical importance of shoot and scoot.
5. Drones have an incredible dual use ability in both peace time and wartime. Specialized drone squads could be deployed the length of breadth of NZ or in the islands and used in both SAR and HADR missions in peacetime and in a wide variety of tactical situations across the Realm of New Zealand in wartime. In peace time how do light artillery pieces provide our public with any return on their cost?
6. New Zealand can built a flexible peacetime/wartime drone industry specialised to our needs. Do you likewise envisage NZ will build our artillery pieces and ammunition here? If not isn't it better to support drones and build and develop here our won drone industry ourselves.
7. Finally and the most important question, drone teams are light, flexible, and can deploy easily, with a minuscule logistics train - guys with suitcases. The ability of drone teams to jump in any cars, ships or aircraft, and reposition at will gives drone teams a massive flexibility and ability to avoid enemy attack and quickly reposition for attack. How do you envisage on any battlefield in the future our artillery and its logistical train will not be eliminated by the enemy?
Thank you in advance for your answers to these 21st century questions.
1. In any battlefield in which NZ forces are engaged in combat. The L118 (current NZ gun) has been employed operationally (and very successfully) in Africa, Europe, South America and the Middle East. Other 105mm artillery types have been employed in South East Asia (including by the NZ Army). None of these environments have presented any particular issue with operating such a system there. Please note however the term: battlefield. Capabilities such as artillery are warfighting capabilities.
2. If such an invasion occurs? Yes of course they will. Force protection measures will be used to protect any asset. Camouflage, concealment, tactical positioning and re-positioning. Electronic warfare, counter-UAS systems deployed by NZ or allied forces and offensive operations by the artillery unit and other NZ and allied units. Whether these are successful or not is the same as any other hypothetical question. Here is a related question. What stops China from killing any NZ drone operator? A person is easier to kill than an artillery piece after all. What stops a Chinese drone operator being killed by a 105mm artillery strike for that matter?
3. How does NZ move any forces to these islands to engage in island warfare? NZ has air and maritime transport capabilities does she not? Her allies have air and maritime transport capabilities do they not? How do they support deployed capabilities? Why, by their transport and logistic capabilities of course… How do you imagine countries manage to keep up a supply of attritable drones or indeed any ammunition natures to their forces? Again, force protection measures. If this warfare scenario is as one sided as you paint the picture, it won’t matter which system you operate. But I get the feeling you don’t really understand how anyone would be fighting this island warfare you imagine might occur. Suffice to say it won’t be fought by digging in and waiting for overwhelming Chinese firepower to turn up and obliterate them, as you seem to imagine will happen. If they do, neither artillery nor drones will matter much.
4. They could of course, but the Western Front was a while back and forces don’t really fight this way any more. The widespread use of motor vehicles instead of horses kind of made that style of fighting redundant. Helicopters and aircraft made it even more obsolete. If NZ Army L118 guns were deploy to assist Australian forces engaged in land warfare in Australia they would be moved (in theatre) primarily by their gun tractors. Or by helicopter. Or by boat / ship. Or by fixed wing aircraft. Or by rail.Or civilian trucks. So basically all the ways we would move any forces in such a scenario.
5. I have stated as much already. You seem to be of the belief that this is an and / or situation. You are aware (I presume in these answers) that the NZ Army already concurrently operates both drones (of various types) and artillery systems? These drones are (in part) employed directly in support of NZ artillery operations, being used for FO parties (google it) and general ISR / targeting operations.
New surveillance drones for NZDF - Australian Defence Magazine
The New Zealand Army will take delivery of three new sets of small Uncrewed Aerial Systems and remote ground sensor systems in 2024 | Tim Fish
www.australiandefence.com.au
What sort of return on investment do your envisaged armed drone units provide in peacetime? What sort of return on investment do your Javelin missiles provide? They provide their return on investment in wartime when you have to engage in actual combat and if you are foolish enough to fail to invest in them in peacetime, you’ll probably have a different view of the wisdom inherent in that decision should you find yourselves in a combat situation. Tolkien argued this point better than I ever could. “Those without swords, can still die upon them.”
6. You could build a tank factory if you really wanted to. The desirability / need or financial viability of such however is what has to be assessed aka the “business case”. It might be in NZ’s interest to develop a local military drone industry, but you have purchased from other all the major drone systems your military uses, from companies and countries that already produce such. You do the same with artillery and your artillery ammunition. The quantities of such that NZ acquires usually makes local manufacture cost-prohibitive however. Feel good “made at home” and “desirability” concepts only go so far afterall and budget realities usually intrude way before these other philosophies could impact the decision however.
7. And where do these drone teams get their attrited drones from? Who resupplies them and by what means? How do you protect small unit, light infantry teams from the counter-battery fires and indeed heavier combat units they will be facing? Have you any idea whatsoever of what happens to light forces when they have to try and oppose heavy conventional forces? Particularly ones that are themselves well-supplied with the sorts of drones you seem to be so enamoured of? How do these light fires (at best) support your conventional forces? How do the light strikes these drones are capable off, achieve suppressive effects on the battlefield?
Bit of a 20th century concept I know, but you actually have infantry forces in the NZ Army. One of their jobs besides filling sandbags and conducting humanitarian assistance operations, is to train to assault the enemy in formations known as sections, platoons, companies, battalions and so on.
They can do so with support, or without it. Old-fashioned history has shown they perform much better when they aren’t slaughtered by enemy machine gun and explosive fires for every step they advance. We could go back to 1914 and try that again, but with the added addition of light drone strikes, but I am not sure you’ll be particularly happy with the results.
Some bright sparks realised that rather than have their unsupported infantry decimated by enemy fires, they could actually fire their own support weapons as their infantry was advancing, which would cause the enemy to decide between being decimated in their turn or to bunker down and not be decimated by these fires. It also had the added benefit that the enemy found it impossible to fire their own weapons unless they felt like being slaughtered. Another bright spark also realised that human bodies are not particularly bullet or fragment resistant, but steel is and if you encased a human being in steel and put wheels or tracks on this structure said human bodies could maneuver around a battlefield. Better yet, they could carry their own firepower of greater range and lethality than any human being could manage and if they too were supported by offensive fires, well you’d have yourself a combined arms system that could perform all sorts of tasks and stand a more than reasonable chance of surviving contact with an enemy.
In recent times it has become easy and quite fashionable to imagine that revolutionary airborne systems such as an FPV drone has fundamentally and irrevocably changed the status quo in land warfare. Reels show drones killing everything from people to tanks and ammunition dumps seems to dominate mil-interested social media feeds, adding to this fascination. Some even suggest this technological advance should replace traditional capabilities because of the drones ability to destroy a target. Cool. Is that all that matters? Missiles have been able to do that for 60+ years too. Has that capability rendered traditional capability obsolete? Or does context, nuance and adaptation have some role to play here? more than a few professionals have studied these matters is significant detail. Here is one of my personal favourite pieces on such topics.
You might be surprised to hear that researchers have also studied the survivability of towed artillery guns on modern battlefields and there are surprising results. One of the results of studies on Ukrainian artillery operations, is that scoot and shoot is a far less useful tactic than you might imagine and the reason is that modern loitering munitions are far better at locating and attacking moving vehicles and people, than they are static, well-concealed and well camouflaged targets, including artillery guns.
Large self-propelled vehicles whilst being easy to locate whilst moving are also concomitantly more difficult to camouflage and conceal. Modern drone survival tactics therefore are focussed on site selection and dispersal, good camouflage / concealment and cover where possible, noting that crest clearances become an issue if attempting to fire within heavily vegetated areas, even though they undoubtedly add to concealment. Other tactical means of increasing survival are also feasible and are detailed at length here:
It might even be the case that the small, humble 105mm gun becomes more effective than ever, given it’s portability, small relative size, ease of concealment and possible overall survivability compared to large “more capable” systems. The introduction of guided 105mm rounds may also contribute to keeping the calibre alive, with reduced necessity of firing of course likely to contribute to increased survivability.
NZ might be better off with newer guns, but then given the above, they might be better off improving the light guns they currently have with better munitions, fire control systems, etc. I am not an artillery expert by any means. If one of their intended jobs is to support Australian forces under Plan ANZAC or similar, well there is little arguing these 105mm guns offer at least a capability difference to the types of artillery capability Australia now maintains.
Just a small note to the above, drones are an evolving capability at the very start of their evolution and were their capabilities will lead and how successful future countermeasures both physical and ew are, at this stage not known. So to put all your egg's in one basket of dones is premature and full hardy. We do need the drone technology and learn from it, but to abandon other capabilities that work is not a good idea.
The guns vs drones angle has received a lot of attention recently. A debate in an NZ context comparing various options and highlighting some of the combined arms integration mentioned by ADMk2 above can be found at:
I personally don't think this is an either/or issue. RNZIR would benefit greatly from S-UAS down to fire team/section level, both as ISR and strike assets, alongside more traditional fire support provided by the artillery (further enabled by more sophisticated ISR UAV).
I'd note that 105mm is actually better in some suppressive functions than 155mm, as the smaller explosive weight means assaulting infantry can get closer before the fire shifts or lifts to avoid fractricide. This is also useful when used in the defense, as illustrated at Long Tan.
I personally don't think this is an either/or issue. RNZIR would benefit greatly from S-UAS down to fire team/section level, both as ISR and strike assets, alongside more traditional fire support provided by the artillery (further enabled by more sophisticated ISR UAV).
I'd note that 105mm is actually better in some suppressive functions than 155mm, as the smaller explosive weight means assaulting infantry can get closer before the fire shifts or lifts to avoid fractricide. This is also useful when used in the defense, as illustrated at Long Tan.
Thanks for posting, they well sum up the arguments. On the one hand we have the new version of the light, neat, precision strike theory that warfare can be accomplished by such straightforward means. None need get their hands dirty and we can prosecute our military intent from the convenience of our handheld tablet device.The guns vs drones angle has received a lot of attention recently. A debate in an NZ context comparing various options and highlighting some of the combined arms integration mentioned by ADMk2 above can be found at:
I personally don't think this is an either/or issue. RNZIR would benefit greatly from S-UAS down to fire team/section level, both as ISR and strike assets, alongside more traditional fire support provided by the artillery (further enabled by more sophisticated ISR UAV).
I'd note that 105mm is actually better in some suppressive functions than 155mm, as the smaller explosive weight means assaulting infantry can get closer before the fire shifts or lifts to avoid fractricide. This is also useful when used in the defense, as illustrated at Long Tan.
Except in bad weather. Except in many cases in high EW jamming environments. Except when the enemy has effective counter-UAS capability.
On the other hand we have the traditional artillery concept, updated with modern C2 concepts and targeting capabilities though they may be.
It would do well to remember that all the weaknesses of drone type systems are strengths of traditional artillery. They provide good amounts of HE, where you need to place them. They are weather agnostic. You cannot jam an artillery shell and render it ineffective (you possibly can for a radar guided fusing system, but we’ll leave that for a moment).
The biggest issue in that article seems to be a lack of precision in the 105mm gun system. This seems to be a niche, that NZ might actually be able to exploit.
There are a variety of precision guided rounds on the market and they derive from 81mm mortar up to 155mm based system. Is it impossible to think that a guidance system could be adapted for the 105mm calibre?
Turns out I am not the only one to have considered such a situation…
ATK Successfully Demonstrates Precision Guidance On 105mm Artillery Round - Defense Daily
ATK Aug. 11 announced it successfully demonstrated the ability to divert a 105mm artillery round using its existing 155mm Precision Guidance Kit (PGK)
www.defensedaily.com
One single component allows the adaptation of the PGK to 105mm calibre. Perhaps that is an opportunity for NZ Defence industry to pursue? There is a market afterall. The US operates some 450x 105mm guns. The UK still operate them and Ukraine does too…
Put an adapted PGK fuse on a modern 105mm base-bleed round and NZ has very quickly developed a precision land strike capability at ranges beyond 20k’s… But one importantly that maintains the full lethality of a 105mm high explosive round.
Last edited:
kiwi in exile
Active Member
The Trump administration seemingly siding with Putin over Ukraine, it's trade war against its neighbour, ally and largest trading partner breaking a trade agreement because of some lies about fentanyl, it's disregard for established democratic checks and balances, etc etc is a bigger deal for NZ security than the Chinese ships in the Tasman Sea.
We are seeing a fundamental change in the geopolitical order and NZ Australia, NATO and other allies can no longer rely on the US to protect them.
Trump has long signalled that his foreign policy would be isolationist and strategic relations would be transactional in nature, like his real estate deals. I'm skeptical that the US would step in to defend Taiwan and the South China seas. He could cut a resources deal with the CCP and say I'll stay out of your way if I get a cut of the plunder. This could happen in antarctica. This may be the direction he is pursuing with Russia with Ukraines 'raw' minerals.
We have little of value to offer the US in exchange for their protection. This will need to be factored into the DCP.
We are seeing a fundamental change in the geopolitical order and NZ Australia, NATO and other allies can no longer rely on the US to protect them.
Trump has long signalled that his foreign policy would be isolationist and strategic relations would be transactional in nature, like his real estate deals. I'm skeptical that the US would step in to defend Taiwan and the South China seas. He could cut a resources deal with the CCP and say I'll stay out of your way if I get a cut of the plunder. This could happen in antarctica. This may be the direction he is pursuing with Russia with Ukraines 'raw' minerals.
We have little of value to offer the US in exchange for their protection. This will need to be factored into the DCP.
Challenger
New Member
Well said.
Further to this I could see more controversy in up coming defence issues or debates within the public sphere not necessarily being % spend or even capabilities (within reason) but whether it’s acceptable to purchase American or not.
Boardgamer88
Member
Given the current state of the US, would it be wise to purchase from America, or should we be looking elsewhere?
Please note I am a complete noob when it comes to defense.
Most of your allies largely do. Regardless of the current priorities of the US Administration, the advantages in buying US kit remain… Cost, capability, inter-operability, the ability to leverage substantial sized programs that would otherwise be unaffordable, the best available on going suppor…
I would opt for 4 GP frigates to replace 2ANZACs and 2 OPVs with ongoing upgraded versions or new class ships to follow every 8 to 10 years. What we can buy in the short term will limit our options but South Korea is still available to add to the list.
It would be a waste of time to think of " filling in the gap " with anything thats not fit for purpose. Box on with the ANZACs, decide quickly what the replacements will be and focus on crew recruitment, training and eventual ship delivery.
More P8s and LRASMs to be added. MH60r's (Crew recruitment, training and setting up for delivery with weaponary). Cheaper secondary aircraft to ease the burden on the P8s - the primary use being short/med range to cover shipping. search and rescue, natural disaster opps.
The army needs both defensive and strike capacity and delivery - wide open.
Finally there are a lot of other options for consideration depending on what is deemed most necessary. ------ ACF ??
It would be a waste of time to think of " filling in the gap " with anything thats not fit for purpose. Box on with the ANZACs, decide quickly what the replacements will be and focus on crew recruitment, training and eventual ship delivery.
More P8s and LRASMs to be added. MH60r's (Crew recruitment, training and setting up for delivery with weaponary). Cheaper secondary aircraft to ease the burden on the P8s - the primary use being short/med range to cover shipping. search and rescue, natural disaster opps.
The army needs both defensive and strike capacity and delivery - wide open.
Finally there are a lot of other options for consideration depending on what is deemed most necessary. ------ ACF ??
With regards to a supplementary aircraft for the p8 I remember some on this forum spoke about the atr72mpa back when the EMAC project was still a thing. Could this still be considered in the near future to free up the p8's more long distance tasks?
?