New Zealand Army

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
9500 regulars and 3000 reserves, yea, we have enough to use them...but then a spare rifle isnt quite the same as a spare NZLAV is it...

Yea it does matter, because then no one can operate them and they sit in a warehouse for 20 years, hence why they were sold...
I get it having them sitting in the warehouse was a daft, they should have been cycled through the fleet. The first batch was delivered in 2003, so I doubt those vehicles have been warehoused for 19 years.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Again you have completely missed the point, yes I would agree with you that they were well past their use by date. but they represented a capability that could be improved on with the man power still in touch and experienced in tracked armoured warfare including tracked fire support. As I have pointed out before you need to have experience leadership in place to make a capability successful including experienced maintenance personnel and leadership

As I have pointed out before, we are outside of the combat radius of any strike aircraft from any land base. That means that any threat that wants to come to NZ has to either cover their approach with an aircraft carrier or continue on into an area were we have air superiority and given the right weapons load this could be a great deterrent, Your comments regarding weekends , while this was true during normal operations, during exercises and practices we worked to 24/7 cycle and did this for several weeks at a time. The problem regarding warning could be covered by good surveillance and intelligence. Being a member of 5 eyes it would be very unlikely that we would not have significant warning. The big thing an ACF brings to the table is deterrence and mobility and the deterence is what we want as you don't ant to have to fight a war if you can deter aggression.
On the matter of invasion. I believe that should an invasion to Australia occur an invader would want to take us out at the same time, as by doing that the make it very hard for the US to send help to the Australian east coast especially if they are operating in the Solomons.
A capability is not just a matter of training people to operate equipment, It is the whole ethos and experience to use the capability in the correct tactical manner that the leadership has to gain experience in and this does not happen quickly . it takes years and decades are even better
On the question of what are the correct numbers of gear to have, I think that the only thing you can have too much of is enemies and people who say it can't be done. It is easy to pick holes in idea's but harder to come up with the ideal.
That was the whole debate way back then, tracked vs wheeled, the benefits for the direction army was going outweighed the cons (as per depending on who you talked to of course) but the were never going to get both, the logistics tail alone would quash that idea. Like any capability it's generally a case of finding the happy(est) medium and taking the compromise on the chin and making the best of any situation. Nothing new for a small DF, helos, airlift, armour etc etc we literally cannot afford to have multiple types when our fleets are already small to begin with, it creates more headaches than it solves. Like I said the reason they optioned the entire fleet with 25mm vs part of was just that type of compromise/consideration, FSV and IMV rolled into 1 platform so instead of 26 scorpions, every wagon is capable of fire support and instead of a single Bns worth of mobility we now have (had) 2 with the same number of overall vehicles, instead of 2 seperate fleets conducting 2 different roles now 1 able to do it all, multi role, NZDF loves that but obviously there's inevitably going to be some form of give/take.

Exactly, if any country has the ability to mount an invasion all the way down here then they obviously have the capability to do so in the first place ie an aircraft carrier hence why no one does it (except the US) and you would assume they at least have a plan of attack, literally. I think even China would take a lesson out of Russias playbook and try not to bite off more than they can chew, confidently chew on anyway ie Russia cannot even support its logistical demands next door never mind a few countries over and not many nations on this planet can. If anything Taiwan will be Chinas goal to that end and will no doubt be Chinas Ukraine as well, as in a right pain in their ass. anything else is just dick waving to counter the US dick waving, and tbf wouldn't we get our backs up as well if Chinese carrier groups were constantly "excersising their freedom of the seas" right on our doorstep? Tit for tat, good for the goose, tomato tomatoe and all. If we tally up the actual "invasion" figures it's actually quite 1 sided and not for nothing but even Australia has done better...

I just feel there are alternate deterrents as well which are more cost effective, achievable (now) and more importantly maintainable and prolific for us, for example I think the Russian military is just as, if not more, worried about the number of launchers Ukraine has in their possesion rather than jets, which have arguably downed more aircraft, taken out more armour and even given their navy a wake up call. Having "more" equipment is good but then just like back in the day we had the gear it was all just rather old, as the funding had to then spread thinner to pay for more, jack of all trades but master of none comes to mind whereas I would rather have what we do have to be decent modern and effective with actual tangible results once the hammer dropped, again a necessary compromise sometimes bar some extremely wishful funding, which I cannot see happening anytime soon, again.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I get it having them sitting in the warehouse was a daft, they should have been cycled through the fleet. The first batch was delivered in 2003, so I doubt those vehicles have been warehoused for 19 years.
You're right, they didn't, they actually sat in the new LAV hangers for the first few years at least until Burnham lost their 50 LAV and QA consolidated into Linton. To me cycling them around is a bit of a have anyway as ultimately what are we achieving other then some low K slightly used LAVs instead of moderate K used LAVs? as at the end of the day they were still 20 year old armour they just took turns to park up all these years?? We would still have to pay the on road, re-gen and maintenance costs anyway including any ultimate repairs and wear and tear. Military vehicles unlike their commercial counterparts are not generally known for racking up the Ks anyway. I'm sure Chile would have been stoked though.

In fact I was all for them being put into service and re-roled to at least get some use with other units throughout NZDF as I'm a firm believer of the old use it or lose it saying but when it's obvious that that is not going to be the case, then better to cut losses and concentrate efforts elsewhere.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
You're right, they didn't, they actually sat in the new LAV hangers for the first few years at least until Burnham lost their 50 LAV and QA consolidated into Linton.
Asking as the Army website no longer seems to outline anything these days about where units are based or oganisation charts, so (and from your recent post) QAMR at Linton has 40-odd LAV's? Then some (few?) at Combat School - is that at Trentham (or Waiouru)? What are the "few with guns", is that at Waiouru for training purposes (and not to be confused with 16 Field regiment RNZA)? Are there any based in the South Island anymore (at Burnham)?
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Asking as the Army website no longer seems to outline anything these days about where units are based or oganisation charts, so (and from your recent post) QAMR at Linton has 40-odd LAV's? Then some (few?) at Combat School - is that at Trentham (or Waiouru)? What are the "few with guns", is that at Waiouru for training purposes (and not to be confused with 16 Field regiment RNZA)? Are there any based in the South Island anymore (at Burnham)?
Yes QAMR is based in Linton now alongside 1 Bn, they were supposed to have 50-52. combat school (well the LAVs at least) in Waiouru. Artillery used to have a small number in the FO role, could have changed. 2nd/1st Burnham re roled to light infantry. In reality I think the Battalions have just gone back to sharing the LAV as/when required ala the M113 battlefield taxis. This was awhile ago mind when I was kicking around. Back then 1 of the coys was even dedicated as Cav, W from memory.

No doubt when the bushmasters turn up a few at least would be based back down south. Interesting to note in the new Utility vehicle-mediums(pinzgauer replacements) will include 30 troop transports with optional armour.
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
I just feel there are alternate deterrents as well which are more cost effective, achievable (now) and more importantly maintainable and prolific for us, for example I think the Russian military is just as, if not more, worried about the number of launchers Ukraine has in their possesion rather than jets, which have arguably downed more aircraft, taken out more armour and even given their navy a wake up call. Having "more" equipment is good but then just like back in the day we had the gear it was all just rather old, as the funding had to then spread thinner to pay for more, jack of all trades but master of none comes to mind whereas I would rather have what we do have to be decent modern and effective with actual tangible results once the hammer dropped, again a necessary compromise sometimes bar some extremely wishful funding, which I cannot see happening anytime soon, again.
Most of the problems which were the cause of the loss of capabilities were due to a steadily shrinking budget in real terms as finance ministers, did what NZ finance ministers do when needing money due to a down turn, which is shrink the defence budget as it does the least damage politically. the problem with that is that they never give it back when things improve. The defence vote as per the standard NATO method was between 2.5 and 3% GDP between 1980 and 1990. in the period 2010 to 2020 it was between 1.2 to 1.55 GDP.
The problem with relying too much on batteries of missiles is that you need a hell of a lot to cover a decent area and with the sea approaches for 14000 KM of coast line also to be covered the size of the manpower to achieve this would be out the question. The advantage of an ACF is that a relatively small force can easily cover such an area. the main reason that the army had to go wheeled was economics as tracked are significantly more expensive to maintain. There was the argument that the wheeled could go around the hills quicker than the tracked could go over, but I always viewed this as a smoke screen as when you are fighting in hill country it is the force that holds the high ground that has a significant advantage and a vehicle that is restricted to the road or firm flat or low rolling country has significant problem. Ideally if the money was available then a mix of wheeled and tracked would be the go.
Exactly, if any country has the ability to mount an invasion all the way down here then they obviously have the capability to do so in the first place ie an aircraft carrier hence why no one does it
With our current set up and no ACF they will not need an aircraft carrier. In fact they could simply sail into a port with commercial ro ro ships , take the place over and build from there. The other possibility is simply to fly into a airfield near a port (you could use mainly commercial aircraft to do this) then take over a port and bring in the heavy stuff. currently their is little we could do to stop them.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Most of the problems which were the cause of the loss of capabilities were due to a steadily shrinking budget in real terms as finance ministers, did what NZ finance ministers do when needing money due to a down turn, which is shrink the defence budget as it does the least damage politically. the problem with that is that they never give it back when things improve. The defence vote as per the standard NATO method was between 2.5 and 3% GDP between 1980 and 1990. in the period 2010 to 2020 it was between 1.2 to 1.55 GDP.
The problem with relying too much on batteries of missiles is that you need a hell of a lot to cover a decent area and with the sea approaches for 14000 KM of coast line also to be covered the size of the manpower to achieve this would be out the question. The advantage of an ACF is that a relatively small force can easily cover such an area. the main reason that the army had to go wheeled was economics as tracked are significantly more expensive to maintain. There was the argument that the wheeled could go around the hills quicker than the tracked could go over, but I always viewed this as a smoke screen as when you are fighting in hill country it is the force that holds the high ground that has a significant advantage and a vehicle that is restricted to the road or firm flat or low rolling country has significant problem. Ideally if the money was available then a mix of wheeled and tracked would be the go.

With our current set up and no ACF they will not need an aircraft carrier. In fact they could simply sail into a port with commercial ro ro ships , take the place over and build from there. The other possibility is simply to fly into a airfield near a port (you could use mainly commercial aircraft to do this) then take over a port and bring in the heavy stuff. currently their is little we could do to stop them.
Agreed, happens every/anytime there is a financial crisis (or at least excuse for one) Defence is always the scapegoat to do the "belt tightening" and deferments which is really just guff for budget cuts as it generally has to be made up in other ways and defence gets creative to maintain outputs. When they cut something like the talked up SOPV then this is when I lose faith in them funding something on the scale of a competent ACF, not only initially but constantly, which an up to date ACF requires. A big investment on a wing and a prayer that wont weather any current/future govt call and could well be the thing that breaks the horses back in terms of overall capability funding and sends us backwards again. I have a feeling there is more they could potentially squeeze out of the NZDF, or more miss out, before all this is done, the mooted 2nd sea lift ship is one that springs to mind.

I only say drones as essentially a poor man's ACF to work in conjunction with random missile placement to at least keep any enemy guessing rather than complete free reign air dominance/ground freedom at least (as we dont currently have either anyway so yes open skies) as at least it's better than nothing and is at least a response that has had some successes against a larger force as shown in the Ukraine. Also the fact it needs to have a pitch in an already considered govt option I feel to even get a look in with this govt, ala P8 supplement with maritime patrol, the fact it can prov limited strike is an option we can ponder once the projects up and running. Easier to add on then make up imo, sneak under the radar as not to ruffle too many feathers from naysayers of which there will no doubt be some. I'm still interested to see what offensive options we will get with the P8s, if any...
 

Gooey

Active Member
Dear Reg

As with the LAV numbers discussion and now ACF, you seem to be confusing the current NZ pacifist situation and mind set with what a fleshed-out, first world, and mature national security assessment would generate.

You have also forgotten your ACF history with the RNZAF F-16 deal that was fully funded within existing budgets, including weapons and upgrades, until overturned by politics-both civilian and Army.

I don't need reminding about our current limitations which seems to be your focus. I'm fully aware. Thank you. What I'm suggesting, for the reasons that I gave) is that a land centric NZDF, as a result of popular Ukraine lessons, is stupid for a small maritime nation (eg. to concentrate on missiles and UAS) when ACF and frigates have more combat utility in the NZ context. Just because we are not there doesn't make this a fantasy discussion.

PS. I entirely agree about the low probability of flighting in NZ v a potential land campaign in Australia; and, NZDFs current inability to argue for or manage its way through a force expansion. For defence professionals, that doesn't make the current situation ok. Nor, that we should just give up and use Hope as our strategy.
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
I only say drones as essentially a poor man's ACF to work in conjunction with random missile placement to at least keep any enemy guessing rather than complete free reign air dominance/ground freedom at least (as we dont currently have either anyway so yes open skies) as at least it's better than nothing and is at least a response that has had some successes against a larger force as shown in the Ukraine. Also the fact it needs to have a pitch in an already considered govt option I feel to even get a look in with this govt, ala P8 supplement with maritime patrol, the fact it can prov limited strike is an option we can ponder once the projects up and running. Easier to add on then make up imo, sneak under the radar as not to ruffle too many feathers from naysayers of which there will no doubt be some. I'm still interested to see what offensive options we will get with the P8s, if any...
The big reason that I would want an ACF is that it has IMO the following advantages
1 Inherent flexibility, which means in NZ's case the ability to cover most threats, both sea born and airborne
2. Rapid deplorability. when I was in 75 as a SNCO mechanical technician and in charge of a significant part of the "PACK UP" ( the spares and tools for maintenance) It was kept in a state for deployment within 48 hours.
3. An ACF puts the least number of lives at risk in the event of combat.
4 We were bloody good at it, When I was with the SQN and we went to Cope thunder in 1983 (Cope thunder was the USAF's Pacific Air Forces equivalent to red flag in the US) We won every category, completed 100% of our missions a day early ( no one up to then had ever completed all the missions, let a lone a day early), Had no losses to either the aggressor Squadrons or simulated missile defence and due to our finishing a day early we became part of the aggressor SQN's and shot down 6 F4 E attackers.
Not to bad for a little Air Force.
I think that a lot of people were completely unaware of what we were set up to achieve and what we could do and we liked it that way.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
snip

As for defending NZ from "any threat" the thing is seriously what would a single squadron that's not on QRF routinely and pretty much shuts down for the weekend going to do? Either not do it (most likely) or burn out trying maintain 2 or even a single in constant readiness anyway as the way I see it unless "Chinas" gonna give us a heads up before they come knocking then somehow I feel we would just carry as before, as in the entire ACFs in 75 sqn hangar, the whole navy is tied up at Devonport wharf and the 30 LAV are warehouse 3. Seriously a section of their elite could cripple or DF in a weekend never mind 3 well placed cruise missiles. We are just not geared to that way of thinking, we were literally joking about it over a few ANZAC beers about how back in the day you could just flash a piece of cheese at the guard but and they would wave you through or how you could just jump the back fence into camp, it's a euphemism for NZ in general. Even Ukraine was still shocked when Russia actually invaded crossed the border and the writing was on the wall well before that, imagine how we would fair honestly? 4-6 jets were taken out on the ground in the first day and seemingly Russia hasnt actually really had a gameplan in all this so imagine how little old NZ would handle the situation if/when/how it arose? I'm literally just saying a whole gang of mobile missiles, drones seem to be doing the damage more than an aging, underfunded, un-assuming ACF (sound familiar) would regardless of how amazing our pilots were/would be and at a fraction of the cost, which is something I factor in considering our govts track record (which nothing has led me to think otherwise), just being realistic under the circumstances. As an example, we dont have missiles or drones either, literally....

You can preach to me all you want about the benefits of a well funded modern military C/W jets, frigates, tanks etc etc but I'm not the one holding the bag, I'm just looking in it, and it's pretty empty. Best I can do is a few bushmasters, a few new C130s/P8s (with great optics, but again, limited offensive/defensive weaponry) to placate joe public.

I get it, we are in need of some serious upgrades, we are just not geared or thinking that way and even when we do the costs/excuses get in the way of progress, and this is all despite what you, me or anyone says on here or how good of a case/scenario/theory you present. I'm not the one you need to convince, I'm just not seeing it happening bar some kind of miracle in the beehive and on the streets.
Agree with this. In my line of work it quickly becomes apparent that its child's play to cripple NZ with very little effort, and with very few resources to do it. It is not just my own observation that's informed this, I've had all sorts of interesting individuals from interesting places confirm it and say exactly how, where and when and in great detail.
I have also learned that pointing out this stuff to those who's job it is take it seriously, even when they ask for this information, is very unpopular, as they are primarily only interested in having their own opinions offered back to them, and if you don't stick to the echo like narrative you find that professional objectivity is a career limiting habit in NZ.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Dear Reg

As with the LAV numbers discussion and now ACF, you seem to be confusing the current NZ pacifist situation and mind set with what a fleshed-out, first world, and mature national security assessment would generate.

You have also forgotten your ACF history with the RNZAF F-16 deal that was fully funded within existing budgets, including weapons and upgrades, until overturned by politics-both civilian and Army.

I don't need reminding about our current limitations which seems to be your focus. I'm fully aware. Thank you. What I'm suggesting, for thep reasons that I gave) is that a land centric NZDF, as a result of popular Ukraine lessons, is stupid for a small maritime nation (eg. to concentrate on missiles and UAS) when ACF and frigates have more combat utility in the NZ context. Just because we are not there doesn't make this a fantasy discussion.

PS. I entirely agree about the low probability of flighting in NZ v a potential land campaign in Australia; and, NZDFs current inability to argue for or manage its way through a force expansion. For defence professionals, that doesn't make the current situation ok. Nor, that we should just give up and use Hope as our strategy.
I'm not confusing anything, it's what has happened, what is happening and what is done, I'm just staying in my lane and living within it. Literally the only way we would resurrect an ACF in this current financial, political and general public setting is if someone like the US gave us them, such as the growlers they are contemplating storing and sold the idea to the pollies as helping in the wider regional context. Of course the F-16 deal came out of the existing budget, we already had a strike force in operation and was replacing it and by all accounts it was a good deal at that. Like I said unless someone drops it in this govts lap then it ain't happening, especially if the likelihood of service in NZ is deemed low to nil, we definately are not going to fund these for someone else.

I'm living within the means, will and direction of the govt we have not the govt we want and none of the current options (or past 2 decades) will change that stance in my view, none, and while the odd individual may rattle some sabres from time to time as a sensible reminder they are eventually forgotten. China could park an aircraft carrier in downtown Sollies and the current administration will still take the diplomatic approach and perhaps finally build the 3rd OPV as a response and consider it reasonable, take the high road and go for the win as that is how out of touch they are. Without a very dramatic change in our political offerings none of this will change much or veer off wildly from what we already have so something like an ACF will require an almost disobedient constant raucous from within (and without) to even be heard when tbh there isnt even whispers. The political (even public) will just isnt there and wont just magically appear in the 15 year minimum time period we need. Another frigate, added soldiers, more helos are outside possibilities whilst ever so slim and because they are current and therefore still in discussion whereas an ACF now is akin to submarines for the navy and tanks for the army, way outside the gambit. Dont get me wrong I would be happy to be proven wrong by our govt, any of them, but for once and in this instance they have not let me down...
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The big reason that I would want an ACF is that it has IMO the following advantages
1 Inherent flexibility, which means in NZ's case the ability to cover most threats, both sea born and airborne
2. Rapid deplorability. when I was in 75 as a SNCO mechanical technician and in charge of a significant part of the "PACK UP" ( the spares and tools for maintenance) It was kept in a state for deployment within 48 hours.
3. An ACF puts the least number of lives at risk in the event of combat.
4 We were bloody good at it, When I was with the SQN and we went to Cope thunder in 1983 (Cope thunder was the USAF's Pacific Air Forces equivalent to red flag in the US) We won every category, completed 100% of our missions a day early ( no one up to then had ever completed all the missions, let a lone a day early), Had no losses to either the aggressor Squadrons or simulated missile defence and due to our finishing a day early we became part of the aggressor SQN's and shot down 6 F4 E attackers.
Not to bad for a little Air Force.
I think that a lot of people were completely unaware of what we were set up to achieve and what we could do and we liked it that way.
I have a friend, who you probably know, goes by the name of Piglet amongst others. He lived in the Philippines for quite a while before RTNZ. In the Philippines he was friendly with US expats who were ex military, some of whom were zoomies. He said that the ex US zoomies used to say that if they heard of anything extra weird or strange done involving A-4s, it would only be two air forces that would come to mind straight away; Kiwis or Israelis and it would be a close tie between the two.
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
I have a friend, who you probably know, goes by the name of Piglet amongst others. He lived in the Philippines for quite a while before RTNZ. In the Philippines he was friendly with US expats who were ex military, some of whom were zoomies. He said that the ex US zoomies used to say that if they heard of anything extra weird or strange done involving A-4s, it would only be two air forces that would come to mind straight away; Kiwis or Israelis and it would be a close tie between the two.
On Clark USAF air base, we had a liaison officer who had worked with the IAF and his opinion was that we were a bit better than them. We also practiced the same thing the IAF did with hot refuels and rearms of the Hawks with the normal target to have the aircraft wheels of the ground within 15 min of landing both refueled and re-armed, got it down to as low as 12min at times.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Ministry of Defence has issued a RFP as part of the NEA Program. It's for:
"a series of reconnaissance and surveillance (R&S) collection capabilities and associated through life support (TLS) (R&S Project) as part of Tranche 2 of the Network Enabled Army (NEA) programme (NEA Programme). ... For the purposes of this RFP, the R&S capabilities being sought have been divided into four equipment packages (each referred to as a "Package"), which are set out below. We note that Defence personnel may be equipped with more than one of these types of equipment to create a complementary capability package.
1. Fixed wing (or hybrid) unmanned aircraft system (UAS) and associated TLS.
2. Nano remotely piloted aircraft system (Nano RPAS) and associated TLS.
3. Micro remotely piloted aircraft system (Micro RPAS) and associated TLS.
4. Remote ground sensors (RGS) and associated TLS.
In addition, the Buyer is seeking R&S capabilities which are capable of being integrated into our developing NEA communication network and Battle Management System, as detailed in Annex A (NEA Reconnaissance and Surveillance High Level Concept Document) of this RFP. As part of their respective Proposal response to this RFP, Respondents are required to provide details on integration as part of the Non-Price Statement of Requirements detailed in the four RFP Response Statement of Requirements templates. Additionally in this section, Respondents are requested to submit an Integration Proposal to the Buyer, describing how it will conduct the integration, but submitting an Integration Proposal is not a pre-condition or requirement for a Proposal to be considered.
What we don’t want
The Buyer is not seeking capabilities which:  are or require a bespoke design; or  have not yet been proven in a military operational setting.
There are other projects that form part of Tranche Two of the NEA Programme. Please note that the scope of those projects (and other tranches of the NEA Programme) are not included in this RFP."​

Important Dates:
RFP reference: NEA2022/001
RFP released: 31.05.2022
Deadline for Questions: 10 am, 12.07.2022
Deadline for Proposals: 10 am, 26.07.2022
 
Last edited:

RegR

Well-Known Member
The Ministry of Defence has issued a RFP as part of the NEA Program. It's for:
"a series of reconnaissance and surveillance (R&S) collection capabilities and associated through life support (TLS) (R&S Project) as part of Tranche 2 of the Network Enabled Army (NEA) programme (NEA Programme). ... For the purposes of this RFP, the R&S capabilities being sought have been divided into four equipment packages (each referred to as a "Package"), which are set out below. We note that Defence personnel may be equipped with more than one of these types of equipment to create a complementary capability package.
1. Fixed wing (or hybrid) unmanned aircraft system (UAS) and associated TLS.
2. Nano remotely piloted aircraft system (Nano RPAS) and associated TLS.
3. Micro remotely piloted aircraft system (Micro RPAS) and associated TLS.
4. Remote ground sensors (RGS) and associated TLS.
In addition, the Buyer is seeking R&S capabilities which are capable of being integrated into our developing NEA communication network and Battle Management System, as detailed in Annex A (NEA Reconnaissance and Surveillance High Level Concept Document) of this RFP. As part of their respective Proposal response to this RFP, Respondents are required to provide details on integration as part of the Non-Price Statement of Requirements detailed in the four RFP Response Statement of Requirements templates. Additionally in this section, Respondents are requested to submit an Integration Proposal to the Buyer, describing how it will conduct the integration, but submitting an Integration Proposal is not a pre-condition or requirement for a Proposal to be considered.
What we don’t want
The Buyer is not seeking capabilities which:  are or require a bespoke design; or  have not yet been proven in a military operational setting.
There are other projects that form part of Tranche Two of the NEA Programme. Please note that the scope of those projects (and other tranches of the NEA Programme) are not included in this RFP."​

Important Dates:
RFP reference: NEA2022/001
RFP released: 31.05.2022
Deadline for Questions: 10 am, 12.07.2022
Deadline for Proposals: 10 am, 26.07.2022
I'm guessing black hornet will make the list in its range considering we already have it on the the payroll in limited numbers so testing and eval is already done. No doubt the project team is watching the Ukraine situation through a microscope to glean as much realtime application and consideration as possible. IMO UAVs have more than proven their worth in a multitude of scenarios that we could/should be taking more advantage of.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I'm guessing black hornet will make the list in its range considering we already have it on the the payroll in limited numbers so testing and eval is already done. No doubt the project team is watching the Ukraine situation through a microscope to glean as much realtime application and consideration as possible. IMO UAVs have more than proven their worth in a multitude of scenarios that we could/should be taking more advantage of.
Maybe the Russo - Ukrainian War will make the Army realise that it needs to wake its ideas up about GBAD as well. Sometimes I really think that the Army senior sirs think that they are still chasing Boer commandos across the high veldt on horseback in South Africa like their tupuna did in the Boer war. The Atua Tūmatauenga would not be impressed with the force that is named after him. He isn't known for his high levels of tolerance. That's what makes him a good God of War. :)
 
Last edited:

RegR

Well-Known Member
Maybe the Russo - Ukrainian War will make the Army realise that it needs to wake its ideas up about GBAD as well. Sometimes I really think that the Army senior sirs think that they are still chasing Boer commandos across the high veldt on horseback in South Africa like their tupuna did in the Boer war. The Atua Tūmatauenga would not be impressed with the force that is named after him. He isn't known for his high levels of tolerance. That's what makes him a good God of War. :)
Exactly, hopefully a few areas get a renewed look at upon reflection of recent worldtime events. GBAD, UAV, mobile artillery etc etc the list goes on, now how far the list the govt will actually look is the $20bn question (if at all). I won't hold my breath, I'll pass out trying, but surely if ever there was an excuse then now is the time to make a few...
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I'm sure I read somewhere that NZ Army increase in funding will be eaten up by making 50% of their vehicles electric vehicles. Prius patrol and Tesla tanks....
Exactly, ideals inevitably cost a lot more than practicality, yet another thing our military cannot afford to realistically fund. The difference between feeling good in dreamland and acting responsibly in the real world on a global scale is literally a waste of finite funding.
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
Exactly, ideals inevitably cost a lot more than practicality, yet another thing our military cannot afford to realistically fund. The difference between feeling good in dreamland and acting responsibly in the real world on a global scale is literally a waste of finite funding.
My current view on electric vehicles is that they are a waste of time , because the extra energy to run them is generated by fossil fuel generation, which runs at a thermal efficiency of 25% and a modern petrol car runs at between 30 to 40%. so not counting the huge amount of co2 required to make the lithium they are still making the situation worse than a petrol engine. All that they are doing is transferring the carbon footprint from the car to the power station. A greenie that I was pointing this out to said " but we are 80% renewable to which I replied that we are already using the 80% and you cannot use it twice. The fact is that the renewable energy in NZ is a finite figure of KW and any extra requirements such as extra electric vehicles is generated with fossil fuels. The use of the 80% figure in this context is a complete wrongful miss use of statistics. The use of electric vehicles is only justified if they are charged from a renewable source and are not an additional load on the national grid that is not renewable. However non plug in Hybrids are good for the environment.
,
 
Last edited:
Top