NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
I think it a rounded up figure for both missiles... since the harpoon block II is around $1.4M USD each (2.4M NZD)
Hard to say what numbers they are using though...
Yep, firing off 4x live rounds in a single exercise, in addition to the land strike exercise RAN did from a Hobart Class AWD a few years back, points to a “yippee shoot” situation where old stock is being fired off for the training benefit and “perhaps” to make room for the newer generation missiles…
I also wonder if there was any cost-recovery from the NZDF or we provided these in the “spirit of ANZAC Co-Operation”?
If this Jane's article is correct what type of loitering munition is likely?
New Zealand to procure loitering munitions
New Zealand to procure loitering munitions
The press release calls them 'long-range one-way strike drones' rather than loitering munitions, id be betting on something like the switchblade 300.
Also this was at the bottom of the release 'Defence also plans to begin market research this week on unarmed long-range uncrewed aircraft systems that can conduct maritime surveillance tasks'.
Also this was at the bottom of the release 'Defence also plans to begin market research this week on unarmed long-range uncrewed aircraft systems that can conduct maritime surveillance tasks'.
I recall that a few years ago the USA was giving cost figures for hardware provided to Ukraine which were heavily criticised, & later revised down. IIRC they were using replacement cost plus delivery cost, even though some of the stuff was scheduled for disposal & giving it to Ukraine was essentially free. They not only valued munitions at new prices when they'd have valued them as worthless when they scrapped them, but didn't account for savings on storage or disposal. I think that led to some things being scrapped, at higher cost than shipping them to Ukraine, to "save money", or because the disposal cost was in the budget but shipping to Ukraine wasn't. In some cases this was pre-positioned US stocks in Europe being transported to the USA for destruction.
Odd budgeting practices can be dangerous, not just costly. The British armed forces have been known to scrap stuff because budgetary rules meant that keeping it attracted a "capital charge" from the Treasury, leading to a lack of reserve stocks. Ukraine provided a golden opportunity to avoid that. Lots of our missiles, shells etc. which were about to expire were sent East, for kinetic disposal, & the Treasury paid for replacements.
kiwi in exile
Well-Known Member
RNZ is reporting this as well
Reporting sourcing a local supplier I think likely SYOS systems that were on Q and A a while back.
Local is better i think as I'm all for developing soverign capability and supporting local.
There was a small article about NZDF trialling the Defendex 40 drone (featured in the linked Janes article) back in Army news back when it was a thing. Think I posted a link at the time.
Good to see us moving forward finally on unmammed systems.
I think we havent fully understood and adaptd to how unmanned systems have changed things.
Re switchblade: I recall hearing that they were given to Ukraine and found to be vulnerable to Russian jamming. May have since had software upgrades. Newer startups and manufacturing processes will give us a more agile adaptable evolution that legacy procurement and providers.
kiwi in exile
Well-Known Member
Penk on Q and A last weekend discussing NZDF workforce shortages.
Heres a pressreader link to the Adrea Vance Post article about the NZSAS being half strength.
NZDF has so much to deal with at the moment.
Changing stretegic environment.
Erratic US leadership.
rapid evolution of capabilities and warfighting
Implications of ongoing deferred spending on defence here in terms of defence capability, moral infrastructure
Staff issues.
I am an optimist in that these challenges can afford us an oppurtunity to adapt and expand our capabilities in a meaningful way.
Heres a pressreader link to the Adrea Vance Post article about the NZSAS being half strength.
NZDF has so much to deal with at the moment.
Changing stretegic environment.
Erratic US leadership.
rapid evolution of capabilities and warfighting
Implications of ongoing deferred spending on defence here in terms of defence capability, moral infrastructure
Staff issues.
I am an optimist in that these challenges can afford us an oppurtunity to adapt and expand our capabilities in a meaningful way.
I was shocked the other day to find out that the RAF still had 40+ Jaguar's in storage and in use as training articles until this year.Odd budgeting practices can be dangerous, not just costly. The British armed forces have been known to scrap stuff because budgetary rules meant that keeping it attracted a "capital charge" from the Treasury, leading to a lack of reserve stocks. Ukraine provided a golden opportunity to avoid that. Lots of our missiles, shells etc. which were about to expire were sent East, for kinetic disposal, & the Treasury paid for replacements.
They were sold off to the Indian Airforce this year to be broken up into spare parts.
Makes you wonder what other stuff various armed forces still have lying around.
I read an artical local news paper that said that currently NZDF personnel current pay rates are 10% below the civilian equivalent even after the recent $1.2B funding injection. Recent information has painted a grim picture of the state of the NZDF with the navy having 600 vacant positions, the air force hiring civilian licenced aircraft engineers to keep flying and the army reduced to one fully manned company per battalion. In a time of increased strategic unrest the pollies have gone to sleep on the matter of defending our sovereignty and freedom.
Murse
Member
Asleep at the wheel for decades. I cant speak to AF or Navy, but I've worked with Kiwi diggers for nearly 30 years and they've always been the poor cousins. Great operators, but terribly under resourced.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
The RFI has been issued - RFI: Persistent Surveillance (Air) Phase 1.
I guess the thinking behind a (4 year) commercial contract is to get the capability up and running and supported in a timely manner (meaning existing personnel won't need to be diverted away from current roles)? And as this technology is evolving Defence can adapt and change a lot quicker in a shorter timespan? Judging by the descriptor "phase 1" this suggests there may be other future projects.
Twelve hours of surveillance a week seems pretty light from an unmanned ISR resource. Although looking at the assumptions it looks like they are focused on NZ missions and approaches (within 1400Nm) rather than Ross Sea missions or extended Pacific missions (they'd get to Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu etc but not much more).
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
B2B Business News offer their view that's a primary consideration.
Thomas Manch writing for Business Desk expands upon this.
So this "first phase of a long-range UAS procurement" appears to be part of a layered maritime ISR system being developed.
And I guess if the likes of Starboard provide the satellite maritime ISR then unmanned (or manned) assets can be directed towards any vessels of interest (and if need-be provide targeting information)?
Last edited: