Hi Lucy - What is your deadline for our submissions to give us a timeframe to reply. Thank you
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
LucyCraymer
New Member
This is an ongoing project so no deadline. I will write a story when I feel have enough information and know enough. It might take some time but I wanted to put my email out here so you know this is something I'm interested in and looking for help on! Thanks
Well you have certainly come to the right place
Hi @LucyCraymer welcome to the forum. How detailed and deep do you want to go?
It really starts in 1991 after Ruth Richardson's "Mother of all Budgets" and starts to decline from there. Then there has been the long term Treasury goal of reducing defence expenditure because it costs money for what they see as little value. They spent approximately three decades trying to get rid of the RNZAF Air Combat Force because it had never been used in anger since the Cyprus intervention of the 1960s. Their next target is the Naval Combat Force because it hasn't been used in anger since the Korean War. Although during the initial 1998 East Timor operation, the frigate HMNZS Canterbury did convince an Indonesian submarine that it suddenly remembered that it had something to do urgently a long distance away.
So there's quite a bit of history and background to it and it isn't just one political party at fault, but both Labour and National for totally different reasons. Labour because of a long standing policy of being antiwar which IIRC was from 1958. National on the other hand has had a policy of limited defence spending since the days of Jim Bolger and Ruth Richardson when they adopted the economic austerity policy. Labour also had that policy and both see defence as a luxury item. Nice to have, but not a core need. That’s how it appears to me. Both of them can get away with it because they see defence as not having any votes.
So like others have said read through the four NZ related defence threads because there is a wealth of information in them with plenty of sources.
New Zealand Army
Hi Guys, before Christmas I saw a media report that suggested that the NZ army had conducted a review of how it was going to organise its battalions. This review was a result of manpower shortages and new equipment. This review was finished the same time as the Defence Sustainability Initiative...
www.defencetalk.com
Royal New Zealand Air Force
RNZAF NH-90 Cost Blowout Stuff is reporting a 200 million dollar blow out in the budget. Cabinet is considering options, including not buying spares. Only 6 Training Helicopters are authorised to be purchased. Full Article here... http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3735059a6160,00.html
www.defencetalk.com
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
Protector Update The Navy’s new Multi-Role Vessel (pictured right), to be named CANTERBURY, has a vehicle capacity for up to 40 NZLAVs (the Army’s new armoured fighting vehicle) along with an embarked force of up to 250 personnel. The MRV’s commercial design heritage provides a comfortable...
www.defencetalk.com
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
One of the issues is the average kiwi (including gubberment) is even though we are surrounded by water, 90% of our trade is done by sea, the average kiwi is very, what we call, "Sea Blind"
They are just as sea blind as every one else. They don't take defence seriously, they say they do, but if they did they wouldn't be cutting back all the time.
The main issue is the government don't take it seriously is because they think it is a waste of money and it is not vote worthy. Which comes back to the public being Sea Blind. We do actually need more people in the media to take defence seriously enough to start asking the hard questions. Start pointing out to the public, why we need a decent defence force. To start getting the general public to understand and asking the questions... But they have to be the right questions to even get the ministers to actually think.
Don't get me started I likely to go off on a rant tangent...
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
Defence expenditure This link helps to show the large reduction in investment in defence capability from a historical run-rate to where we are today. Other areas of government responsibility have not been treated this way. This was driven by the perception of threats and the desire to spend as little funds as possible after the fall of the USSR. Our environment has completely change but this change has not been reflected in our response or prioritisation to provide for our own defense or supporting others with similar views. The era of great power competition is back, we can not expect to get the benefits of a stable world order if we do not contribute to maintaining it. Many countries are investing in this such as India, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Australia, USA, Indonesia, just within our local area. Often whenever defense is mentioned people state that we should not be a puppet of the USA, from my perspective the USA has been a great friend to NZ and has enabled NZ to do many things we could not of done without their support.
NZ is welcome to start its own grouping of countries to share defence technology, security and intelligence. Perhaps Helen Clark could get on the phone and round up some friends she actually likes rather than keep turning up at the party, eating the chips and complaining about the hosts.
The issue is not just a matter of funding and size, but also under utilization of existing assets capabilities or acquiring in sufficient capability. For example NZ has purchased the P8A but did not acquire any stand off weapons (i.e. anti ship missiles) to allow for engagement of naval forces in the South Pacific or Tasman Sea should the need arise (effectively the P8 would have to fly over them and drop bombs - just like in WWII). Like wise the LH-109 and even the T-6 could provide a very limited CAS and enhanced training capability for the army, but we have not acquired the necessary equipment or systems. The trusty 14 Iroquois helicopters were replaced with 8 operational NH-90. While the NH-90 can achieve and lift more, the Kaikoura earthquake highlighted in my view the serious short comings in the rotary lift capability of the RNZAF.
There is also a failure to understand at a political level that the nature and way wars are being fought has change. The army has only a very limited air defence (i.e. 12.7mm and 25mm effectively) capability at present. Yet we are seeing more drones being used as weapons not just by nation states (2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict) but also non state players. Hezbollah possesses a range of weapons systems (anti ship missiles, air defence etc) while rebels in Yemen have used short range ballistic missiles (i.e. Burkan-2) . These non state players often act as de-factos for state players. Overseas trends are towards re-requipping forces with low level air defence systems, however in NZ we placed the Mistral Low Level Air Defence system into storage after less than 10 years in service, for various reasons.
If I were to summarize where defence stands in terms of capability and where the core issues lay:
There is also a failure to understand at a political level that the nature and way wars are being fought has change. The army has only a very limited air defence (i.e. 12.7mm and 25mm effectively) capability at present. Yet we are seeing more drones being used as weapons not just by nation states (2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict) but also non state players. Hezbollah possesses a range of weapons systems (anti ship missiles, air defence etc) while rebels in Yemen have used short range ballistic missiles (i.e. Burkan-2) . These non state players often act as de-factos for state players. Overseas trends are towards re-requipping forces with low level air defence systems, however in NZ we placed the Mistral Low Level Air Defence system into storage after less than 10 years in service, for various reasons.
If I were to summarize where defence stands in terms of capability and where the core issues lay:
- The army lacks the capability to operate within a modern medium - high intensity conflict (the actual type of conflict may vary) zone due to a lack of local air defence, a limited anti-armour capability and a lack of an active self defence system on the LAV (i.e. Trophy) to provide self defence from guided weapons. These are just some examples. I would also note the vulnerability of fixed artillery such as NZ currently operates based on observations of the Ukrainian conflict, that suggest mobile artillery is the future.
- The navy lacks sufficient number of ships provide sufficient capability to respond to short notice events (i.e. East Timor) without compromising other operations. Its interesting that the Irish government considers 8 ships to be the absolute minimum for the enforcement of their EEZ, while entire RNZN consists of 10 ships (once and if the SOPV comes online) for a significantly larger area and greater responsibilities. While the strategic environment for Ireland is different it does highlight how sea blind New Zealand really is to its geographic position and the vulnerability of its trade routes.
- The airforce lacks airframes (helicopters and others to name a few) and what airframes it does has are not used to the fullest of their capability. This impacted on the ability to deploy to Afghanistan.
- The current size of the NZDF and limited air transport means that the regular force would not be able to respond effectively in a sustained way to a major disaster arising say from the Southern Fault Line or Wellington Fault knocking out a 7.8 quake.
- We won't even get into the debate about an air combat capability, because that's been discussed to death - but the disbandment of the Air Combat Force really highlights the short sighted strategic thinking in Wellington political and Treasury circles.
- Elements in Wellington fail to understand the fact there is no surplus equipment that we can acquire to shore up our defences like there use to be in the 1960's, and what equipment is available takes time to regenerate and requires a significant investment in training, that still doesn't compensate for institutional knowledge and experience.
A fair summary however as a foreigner I would suggest that the RNZN is so poorly equipped that it’s core responsibilities such as enduring sovereignty patrols in NZ’s Pacific Protectorates are neglected.
it seems the only role the government envisages for the navy is home waters constabulary duties.
The appalling situation where navy was left without any combat ship for 3 or 4 years is disgraceful and degrading in the eyes of your cousins across the ditch.
The most demoralising aspect for those who serve is that it seems their political class don’t give a big rats ring bit!
I served with a number of proud Kiwi combat ships on Far East Strategic Reserve in the 60’s and 70’s and they were a vital part of of that force, an enduring presence, the decline is tragic.
What seems more frustrating is that PM and the two cabinet ministers responsible for NZ’s defence standing seem to be (from an outsiders POV) totally indifferent and disconnected
Perhaps it's time you contributed something other than having a dig at NZ. You appear to have a history of it and don't like it when Australian faults are pointed out to you. So have you got the intestinal fortitude to contribute something constructive to the conversation or are you going to hide behind Kiwi bashing? TBH we don't need that crap here and it just demeans you and lowers the level of the discourse.
If you look further back, a page or so, an excellent suggestion was made by @Nighthawk.NZ about NZ forming a separate grouping around quantum computing, cyberspace, space, and other sciences. I then replied with this:
"That makes good sense. Such a group should consist of the FVEY plus Japan, India and Singapore. I am unsure about SK because I suspect that they have been successfully penetrated by NK and PRC. Maybe Indonesia in some capacity but again how well has the PRC penetrated Indonesian government and the TNI?
On the space frontier, we do have the advantage in that NZ is well placed for insertion of satellites into orbit because of our location and the low air traffic in our region. The government is friendly towards space endeavours and businesses are relatively easily to start up in NZ. Christchurch appears to be the main space related centre with Auckland running a close second. Both have world class universities and I do know that the University of Canterbury is active in rocketry. It uses the Kaitorete Spit for rocket launches. The University of Canterbury also has a research department that specialises in satellite navigation systems and research amongst other things. Undoubtedly the University of Auckland will have similar facilities. NZ also has considerable experience in composite materials because of its involvement in the Americas Cup Yacht racing and other maritime endeavours. The Rocket Lab rockets are mostly constructed using composite materials.
Each of the other nations brings something to the table that they specialise in and / or are able to provide capabilities or capacity for. That would be the benefits of such a group."
So there are avenues that can be explored. - You forget that FVEY is an intelligence sharing and cooperation agreement only.
- You forget that NZ and Australia have a mutual defence treaty as well.
- You forget that most of the Kiwis who post on here are not happy with the current and previous NZ governments defence capability decisions.
- You fail to note that the NZ posters do not denigrate Australia.
- It appears that you fail to read through the NZ threads before posting.
I agree and knowing your background would consider it a authoritive assessment. BZ.
Lucy there is easily enough material for you to do a series of articles relating to National Security and Defence. I have had a read of some your recent work and it is pretty good. Balanced and informative. Well done. Do take your time to get it right because this topic is incredibly multifactorial in nature, highly complex, not easy to understand and is incredibly important.
Credibility is an important point with us here and the fact that you have spent time working overseas based in Hong Kong and were a correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, which only takes on capable people, is a plus in my view. It gives you a global lived experience seldom seen in most reporting with respect to New Zealand when approaching this topic.
Also draw upon non Kiwi voices as well they will give you a more orbital perspective than simply the silo's of Kiwi views and as you read through pay particular attention to those with DefPro and Moderator tags as they have been vetted and retain a deep knowledge and experience in certain subject areas.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Could I suggest forum members contact Lucy with ideas of who it might be good to talk to on the record. Ron Mark comes to mind. Non-politicians ideally.
Last edited:
Fair call. I will take your advice and move on until I have something of substance to submit.
Dr Peter Greener, Dr Jim Rolfe, Professor Al Gillespie, and Dr Lance Beath would be good people for Lucy to approach on the academic side.
Dr Paul Buchanan will always give a fascinating perspective as well.
I think Lucy should talk to Chris Penk MP if she was going to talk to at least one politician. The only one who is a former Naval Officer who has both Frigate and Submarine experience - with both NZDF and ADF experience.
For a perspective that can be more broadly run across the Post Cold War period through to today where we saw the stripping of capabilities are some of the older heads in the business such as Gerald Hensley the former Defence Secretary 1990-1999, though I am not sure of his health status now but was living in in the Bay of Islands I last heard. Dr Ron Smith who taught the International Relations and Public Policy course at Waikato University was always very interesting to chat to again now retired and I have lost contact with him - he used to write for Muriel Newmans Think Tank but seems to drifted away in recent years - I hope he's OK. Prof Stephen Hoadley is another - now retired from the University of Auckland and probably contactable as he cannot get to his bolt hole on the Coromandel with wife Wyn at present.
On the military side retired Rear Admiral Jack Steer, retired Air Vice Marshal's Don and John Hamilton are some who would be able to share some fascinating insights as they literally saw the NZDF taken apart whilst they were in office. Retired Air Commodore Gavin Howse in a similar vein.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Similar to part of a tangent I wrote out and then deleted as I didn't want to go in a rant... but... here I am.
Since I left the RNZN I have watched our defence force all over get smaller and smaller, capable in some ways less capable in others ways
We now have a air taxi service, with limited offensive capability. While anti submarine is basic anti-ship is non-existent. We don't have enough air-frames and as they get older this will become more and more apparent as the maintenance to keep them air worthy is harder and having less air frames just makes it that harder ... From x6 P-3K2 Orion's to x4 P-8A Poseidon. and as pointed out no offensie weapons to do their job of anti shipping...
We don't have enough helo air frames, we barely have enough C-130 air frames and can't air transport the NZLAV, or the NH-90 and a few other items.
The T-6 may be able to light CAS duties, limited recon... but they are not trained in any of this, and don't have the systems and or armament or equipment to do so.
Don't get me started on not having a strike wing... leaving no air cover for our troops and or naval assets... don't get me started I may go on a real tangent rant... :-/ lol
We have a slightly heavier armed coast guard, that can operate that can operate with international partners, but realistically only light duties. They have no long range stand off anti ship capabilities, they do have the use of medium range ASM with the Penguin Missile and helo but to do anything serious with that they are well with in the range of anti air defences of the attacking vessel and becomes vulnerable. With the current upgrades they have the sensors but nothing to deal with the threat, but at least they will know what hit them.
The SeaSprite is an ASW helo but we they don't have dipping sonar to hunt the submarines on their own in the area. The SH-2G(i) is an old air frame and again not enough of them as part are getting hard to source to keep them flying. (They are to be replaced in 2028/29ish)
We don't have enough hulls in the water in the frigate squadron and they are under armed, the patrol squadron vessels are also under armed. I am sick to death of the "Fitted for but not with" and is a very dangerous mind set, as missions of vessels can change with in seconds and if systems are not installed to deal with the evolving scenario then it can be dangerous for the ship as they can not deal with the threat, nor are the trained on the equipment ...
The army did have very limited air defence cover but they are in storage and probably past used by date also personal are not trained how to use them any more. The army only has a couple of under manned and under resourced battalions which means we can only deploy one at a time in rotation. Very limited anti armour, very limited just about non existent anti-air, no offensive power, (Going on the offense is usually the best defence) The static formation of the artillery needs to be more mobile than it currently is... They are only just replacing the useless Armoured Pinzgauer now with what the army originally wanted the Bushmaster...
NZ has a habit of keeping thing way past there used by date, that should have been replace years before... Take for example the C-130H the work horse of our transport fleet they should have been replaced 10-15 years ago... Then when we need them to go to the recent Afgainistain evacuation we could only just muster one, and don't get me started on hypocrisy of the the Green MP Golriz Ghahraman wanting to cut back on the budget and including the purchase of the C-130J-30 Super Hercules... and then saying we should have done more... well we couldn't due to the age of equipment... Another bad habit is always trying to take short cuts and doing things on the cheap...
This is not the only time NZ has been caught like this. In recent times, Fiji Coup in 1987... David Lange wanted us to do more but we couldn't as we didn't have equipment and or enough of said the herc's were a a mess in maintenance, the Navy had no assets to help in the situation. (Edit... there is a little more to than this... but the point is we didn't have the assets operational to do the what was asked) With other actions in the our sphere of influance ie East Timor, this lead to the total balls up of HMNZS Charles Upham which in turn lead Project Protector with HMNZS Canterbury which they still stuffed it up try to get to much from the wrong type of hull... They quickly worked out 2 frigates can't replace 4 frigates... so the OPV's tried to take some of the pressure off... but the 2 frigates are still over worked as an OPV can not do the job a frigate.
The Navy never really wanted 4 IPV's and were happy with 2... but no, instead of listening to the Naval advisors they got 4 and 10 years later decommissioning 2... and may get rid of the other 2 in years to come... sounds so similar to the old Lake class IPC's...
They stuffed up on the purge which gutted the NZDF of key personal, moral dropped to an all time low, which does not help... all to save a penny. Yet they waste money elsewhere on civil services that nobody needs or wants.
Defence is the one place governments HAVE to spend money, and people hate it when I say this (and I not suggesting that they do this, but) government can cut back on health and education as an example etc... as people can still go to the private health and education sector. Government has to spend money of defence as we are not allowed to do this privately... I am not allowed to form a private army and equip it to do the job the NZ army can't do... it is like an unwritten agreement between government and citizens. We give you money to spend on society but you spend money on a good defence force to protect that society and way of living ie; Like insurance, hopefully we don't have use them or make a claim... but it's nice to know you have that insurance. Governments tend to forget this and it has been forgotten for so long now. Technically defence is the only thing the Government HAS to spend money on. However to have a good society yes we need health care and education etc... but you get my point. (hopefully)
Last edited:
Lucy,
First thing, welcome and I trust that you find some material here.
As mentioned it can be somewhat tedious this Defence thing, which is why the pollies have managed to ignore it for some 3 decades (ie. since the ANZUS & Nuclear Ships disaster) during our past period of Benign Strategic Environment.
Then again it’s not really: ala Covid, we are at the end of the international supply lines. If something happens, a long way away, we will get affected. So distance is not going to keep us safe. As before, the fact most people are not scared of this is Sea Blindness.
We can’t defend ourselves by our lonesome so, like all small countries, we need big mates. That used to be ANZUS until we decided we were too clever for that and drifted into a Independent Foreign Policy. That works okay unless you have to live in a new era of Strategic Competition with the CCP. Because history is there to be forgotten and 1942 would never happen again!
Now we are stuck with a bunch of Pollies desperate to make our system of no defence work (no Hard power) and thinking the Commies would never hurt us (our Soft power depends on a healthy mix of Kindness, money, happy economy and Kinetic effects (bullets and bombs) to work) because they said so.
The NZDF has been reformed into a toothless militia, with no independent combat power, it’s senior leadership are ignored by Gov, so the good guys leave and there remains no nasty advice for the Pollies to have to ignore and Treasury bleed dry. I’d seriously suggest that senior Sirs have little operational experience of modern war fighting. Particularly because we have no Fighting Air Force or Navy, anymore. If they did, they would leave because they are being ignored.
That leaves the pacifists, hippies and academic wonks (eg. today’s Stuff article on AUKUS) to give their 2 cents. Which for MSM becomes the new normal.
Some good attention grabbing headlines for you, I’d suggest are:
- Why do we have 105 little tanks, 2 shite frigates and no Air Combat Force
- Why did PM Clark destroy the RNZAF when her own independent inquiry told her not to disband the ACF (Quiggly Report) and ASW for 5Sqn is a good thing to have as a maritime nation; by the way, to get these skills back would take say 15 years optimistically and $B; by the way, we’d be pretty happy right now if we did have the “deal of a century “ F-16s as a modern ACF capability in our maritime environment with CCP aircraft carriers about to poke around the South Pacific
- Why did Army, to get 105 little tanks back in the day when had an ACF and 4 Frigates, back brief Pollies and destroy HQ NZDF efforts and moral as well as the RNZAF and RNZN
- Why did we ban Nuclear Ships and destroy ANZUS when we actually wanted to ban the Bomb, when no complaints are heard about visiting CCP war ships
- If we are responsible for the defence of some very northern South Pacific islands, why do we not have a fighting navy or Air Force
- Why are we only getting 4 new P-8s when we in this new era of Strategic Competition and they are not armed with Long Range Anti Ship Missiles (like the Oz ones)
- Why did we spend so much more money on the shite Frigate upgrade which only provides a fraction of the capability of the RAN Anzac upgrade
- Why are we not part of the RAN Hunter class Frigate program
- What does the NZDF have that could help Australia in a fight in our neighbourhood, how many, and how many reserves do we have
Any how, that’s probably enough of my drivel. I do trust that you look into this some more Lucy!
Regards
Moderator edit. For gawds sake @Gooey get the terminology right. You have been on here long enough to know that. The Army doesn't have "little tanks"; they have Light Armoured Vehicles. Big difference. Lucy is a professional so have the decency to treat her as such.
Ngatimozart.
First thing, welcome and I trust that you find some material here.
As mentioned it can be somewhat tedious this Defence thing, which is why the pollies have managed to ignore it for some 3 decades (ie. since the ANZUS & Nuclear Ships disaster) during our past period of Benign Strategic Environment.
Then again it’s not really: ala Covid, we are at the end of the international supply lines. If something happens, a long way away, we will get affected. So distance is not going to keep us safe. As before, the fact most people are not scared of this is Sea Blindness.
We can’t defend ourselves by our lonesome so, like all small countries, we need big mates. That used to be ANZUS until we decided we were too clever for that and drifted into a Independent Foreign Policy. That works okay unless you have to live in a new era of Strategic Competition with the CCP. Because history is there to be forgotten and 1942 would never happen again!
Now we are stuck with a bunch of Pollies desperate to make our system of no defence work (no Hard power) and thinking the Commies would never hurt us (our Soft power depends on a healthy mix of Kindness, money, happy economy and Kinetic effects (bullets and bombs) to work) because they said so.
The NZDF has been reformed into a toothless militia, with no independent combat power, it’s senior leadership are ignored by Gov, so the good guys leave and there remains no nasty advice for the Pollies to have to ignore and Treasury bleed dry. I’d seriously suggest that senior Sirs have little operational experience of modern war fighting. Particularly because we have no Fighting Air Force or Navy, anymore. If they did, they would leave because they are being ignored.
That leaves the pacifists, hippies and academic wonks (eg. today’s Stuff article on AUKUS) to give their 2 cents. Which for MSM becomes the new normal.
Some good attention grabbing headlines for you, I’d suggest are:
- Why do we have 105 little tanks, 2 shite frigates and no Air Combat Force
- Why did PM Clark destroy the RNZAF when her own independent inquiry told her not to disband the ACF (Quiggly Report) and ASW for 5Sqn is a good thing to have as a maritime nation; by the way, to get these skills back would take say 15 years optimistically and $B; by the way, we’d be pretty happy right now if we did have the “deal of a century “ F-16s as a modern ACF capability in our maritime environment with CCP aircraft carriers about to poke around the South Pacific
- Why did Army, to get 105 little tanks back in the day when had an ACF and 4 Frigates, back brief Pollies and destroy HQ NZDF efforts and moral as well as the RNZAF and RNZN
- Why did we ban Nuclear Ships and destroy ANZUS when we actually wanted to ban the Bomb, when no complaints are heard about visiting CCP war ships
- If we are responsible for the defence of some very northern South Pacific islands, why do we not have a fighting navy or Air Force
- Why are we only getting 4 new P-8s when we in this new era of Strategic Competition and they are not armed with Long Range Anti Ship Missiles (like the Oz ones)
- Why did we spend so much more money on the shite Frigate upgrade which only provides a fraction of the capability of the RAN Anzac upgrade
- Why are we not part of the RAN Hunter class Frigate program
- What does the NZDF have that could help Australia in a fight in our neighbourhood, how many, and how many reserves do we have
Any how, that’s probably enough of my drivel. I do trust that you look into this some more Lucy!
Regards
Moderator edit. For gawds sake @Gooey get the terminology right. You have been on here long enough to know that. The Army doesn't have "little tanks"; they have Light Armoured Vehicles. Big difference. Lucy is a professional so have the decency to treat her as such.
Ngatimozart.
Last edited by a moderator: