NZDF General discussion thread

[kiwi in exile]

haven't listened yet or read all of the short linked report on which the podcast draws.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/podcast-card/do-we-really-need-to-prepare-for-nuclear-war
The Detail - Do we really need to prepare for nuclear war

hardening ourselves for nuclear war would benefit a broader strategic preparedness for other possible global challenges.

 

[Teal]

haven't listened yet or read all of the short linked report on which the podcast draws.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/podcast-card/do-we-really-need-to-prepare-for-nuclear-war
The Detail - Do we really need to prepare for nuclear war

hardening ourselves for nuclear war would benefit a broader strategic preparedness for other possible global challenges.

Starter for ten points........dont shut Marsden point

 

[south]

Here's the second part of my article on NZDF attrition. Since publishing it a couple of days ago, I have had several recent exit pers advise that the scene was already set for the inward collapse and that Covid just provided the trigger. Curing NZDF’s Long Covid

The NZDF reported losses of 1556 full-time personnel (including civilians) between February 2020 and January 2022. Over half of those (878) were from the Army which represents significant loss (18.8%) in a full-time uniformed force of 4,659. Some ranks and trades have been hit much harder than others.

G’day Simon,

I agree that the combat capability of the NZDF is pretty hollow, and that soldiers, sailors and airmen (should that be aviators?) are being used for things that aren’t in the job description, but is a 18.8% personnel separation rate over 2 years really dire? If averaged over two years it’s 9.4% per year - indicating that (assuming numbers are stable) service members are averaging a little over 10 years in service.

This rate is in line with the ADF, which has a 5 year separation rate of 9.1%, and I think most people would agree that an average of 10 years is a reasonable amount of time. Totally acknowledge that some ranks and/or trades may be more critical. Also noting that some people spend less time, and some people end more; but this is also reflective of the pyramid shaped rank structure.

 

[ngatimozart]

Here's the second part of my article on NZDF attrition. Since publishing it a couple of days ago, I have had several recent exit pers advise that the scene was already set for the inward collapse and that Covid just provided the trigger. Curing NZDF’s Long Covid

Great article Simon and as usual on point. There's certainly a lot to think about.

I think that 40 years is a little harsh I think 30
The 1980's were possibly the best for equipment buying or refitting for some time.
From memory the navy got Wellington and Southland then later in the decade the 2 ANZACs were ordered along with 2 possibles.
The army got the Unimogs new Land Rovers the Scorpions, new rifles and the 105's
the Air force got additional skyhawks rom the RAN, the P3's updated plus an additional P3, the Skyhawks Were rebuilt to a high standard and new missiles came. the Macchi's were ordered. and the defence budget was around 2.5 to 3% GDP. This list is by no means exhaustive.
The rot really set in with the new National Government in 1990's with Ruth Richardson's Mother of all budgets and Helen Clark continued the destruction. The following governments have simply limped along not wanting to compromise their money for votes agenda.

Yes the Southland and Wellington were acquired in 1981 /82. HMS Dido & Bacchante from memory. They were basically goat boats and when I was on the RNZN 50th in 1991 the local concrete suppliers just loved Southland because the hull was rusting through and concrete was used to patch it. The GOTD should have bought a couple of Type 22s or 23s, but the then PM had financially ruined the country. The mogs were a good acquisition, the Landrovers suspect, and the Steyr rifles are my pet hate. I believe that the Macchis were the cheap is best option and Hawks should have been bought.

haven't listened yet or read all of the short linked report on which the podcast draws.
The Detail - Do we really need to prepare for nuclear war
The Detail - Do we really need to prepare for nuclear war

hardening ourselves for nuclear war would benefit a broader strategic preparedness for other possible global challenges.

I read the article and the paper it was based on Sustained Resilience: the impact of nuclear war on New Zealand and how to mitigate catastrophe – Public Health Expert, University of Otago, New Zealand It's written by a catastrophic risk researcher and a public health expert. They actually downplayed the radioactive fallout and nuclear winter aspects of an all out nuclear war upon the southern hemisphere and that there would be Russian nuclear missile targets in the southern hemisphere.

 

[Rob c]

Yes the Southland and Wellington were acquired in 1981 /82. HMS Dido & Bacchante from memory. They were basically goat boats and when I was on the RNZN 50th in 1991 the local concrete suppliers just loved Southland because the hull was rusting through and concrete was used to patch it. The GOTD should have bought a couple of Type 22s or 23s, but the then PM had financially ruined the country. The mogs were a good acquisition, the Landrovers suspect, and the Steyr rifles are my pet hate. I believe that the Macchis were the cheap is best option and Hawks should have been bought.

Yep, But at least we were getting something to maintain the capabilities, as opposed to slowly loosing overall capabilities and getting nothing. The Macchi's did have some initial engine problems which were sorted and while Hawks would have been preferred, they were still a capable aircraft and the air force did not lose much by not having Hawks. The RAN Skyhawks and RAAF P3 plus the Up grades to both were I think very successful. Most of the suspect buy's were under the then "PM who had financially ruined the country" prior to1984. I remember that prior to Wellington and Southland they were looking seriously at HMS Norfolk, I was still at Def HQ at the time and it got to the stage of possible crew allocations, that would have made life interesting as the only plus you could have said about that was that it was big for those times and had surface to surface missiles. but sense did did in the end prevail.

 

[Boardgamer88]

So an article came out today about the target vs actual defense force recruitment numbers for 2022

Spoilers: They're not good.

Stuff

i.stuff.co.nz

Defence Force recruitment numbers are below required targets as recruiters battle a strong civilian labour market and a high attrition rate.

 

[south]

So an article came out today about the target vs actual defense force recruitment numbers for 2022

Spoilers: They're not good.

Stuff

i.stuff.co.nz

View attachment 49303

Given they are numbers collected through 31 March only, are they not ahead of recruitment targets for 2022? 396 recruits in a quarter, from a forecast of 931 sounds like they are ahead (if it remains relatively linear), or am I missing something.

 

[ngatimozart]

Given they are numbers collected through 31 March only, are they not ahead of recruitment targets for 2022? 396 recruits in a quarter, from a forecast of 931 sounds like they are ahead (if it remains relatively linear), or am I missing something.

Of course the article doesn't explain the NZDF recruitment methodology and it's inbuilt barriers against prospective recruits.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is a Newsroom article that puts the Finnish and Swedish NATO membership application into context and shows just how much it has changed the European political landscape. The European left, was allergic to defence and security. It especially viewed the likes of Reagan, Bush Jnr, Trump, and Thatcher with much suspicion and some derision. The Greens, especially, were anti militaristic and were pacifists.

In 2014 Putin invades the eastern part of Ukraine using little green men and annexes Crimea. He then starts a covert war against Ukraine and from December last year ups the ante considerably, finally fully invading in February this year. In the last year or so the European left have gradually changed their stance, but since Putin's invasion this year they have done a complete 180 and now are more "aggressive" and assertive than most parties on the right. Even the German Greens seem to have cast their pacifism aside, with the German Greens being the most in favour of NATO and defence spending now. Both the Finnish PM, Sanna Marin, and Swedish PM, Magdalena Andersson, are left wing Social Democrats who would never have dreamed that they would lead their countries into NATO, yet here they are.

This is quite an interesting and intriguing development because its now taking defence out of the realm of the economical theory motivated politicians and placing it in political theory motivated politicians.

Putin’s War Has Changed The Pacifist Reflexes of Europe's Left | Newsroom

The interesting point is whether the NZ left will decide to follow their European colleagues lead, because it is usually they who the Kiwi lefties follow. The NZLP are aligned with and has formal relationships with the various European Social Democratic Parties. Secondly and more intriguingly, will the NZ Greens follow the German Greens and renounce pacifism? Hmm, maybe not - I can just see them choking on their soy caffeine free lattes as they contemplate that. But if both the NZLP and the Greens were to accept and follow the European lefties changes, it would be good for NZDF.

 

[Volkodav]

G’day Simon,

I agree that the combat capability of the NZDF is pretty hollow, and that soldiers, sailors and airmen (should that be aviators?) are being used for things that aren’t in the job description, but is a 18.8% personnel separation rate over 2 years really dire? If averaged over two years it’s 9.4% per year - indicating that (assuming numbers are stable) service members are averaging a little over 10 years in service.

This rate is in line with the ADF, which has a 5 year separation rate of 9.1%, and I think most people would agree that an average of 10 years is a reasonable amount of time. Totally acknowledge that some ranks and/or trades may be more critical. Also noting that some people spend less time, and some people end more; but this is also reflective of the pyramid shaped rank structure.

Just so long as the ones you are losing aren't the ones you want to keep.

I don't know about NZ but in Australia during the 90s there was a general hollowing out of defence where those able to find something better often did and those not wanted elsewhere stayed, often with retraining to replace those who left. It wasn't always the case as some very good operators still spent their entire career in uniform, but still, there were too many promoted who normally would have tapped out a rank or three lower.

 

[Gooey]

This is a Newsroom article that puts the Finnish and Swedish NATO membership application into context and shows just how much it has changed the European political landscape. .... But if both the NZLP and the Greens were to accept and follow the European lefties changes, it would be good for NZDF.

Thanks, Nga for an interesting article. We always live in interesting times, that's for sure. I too hope that this sea change in Europe due to Russia, and our own assessments of the CCP activity in the South Pacific and Solomons, will reinvigorate our NZ national security calculus.

I write that with a straight face, daring to believe that we actually have an integrated policy, from both the major parties. Today's budget may be an indicator of this trend. If I were a betting man I'd assume so.

One sad observation is that both Sweden and Finland have always taken defence seriously. For example, Sweden makes its own fighter aircraft and Finland has 200,000+ 'active' reserves and is obtaining F-35's. I'm assessing that they take their history seriously.

Whereas NZ, on the other hand, does not. As we enter the 80th year of the Battle of the Coral Sea and Midway, leading to the PNG and Solomons campaigns, perhaps now is a good time to reflect on our maritime-centric environment (or, our sea blindness), the inherent instability of world affairs (especially for small countries), and our own lack of warfighting capability (NZ pop 5 mil WRT Finland pop 5 mil).

So, long moan short, NZ is unlikely to change its defence policy based on Finland and Sweeden (and Germany) b/c we are exceptional, inwards looking, hermits.

 

[Boardgamer88]

New release from the government about the 2022 Budget, in terms of Defense.

Funding boost secures Defence capabilities

Budget 2022 sees significant resources made available for the Defence Force to maintain existing defence capabilities as it looks to the future delivery of these new investments.

www.beehive.govt.nz

TL,DR: The main highlight are:

• $662.5 million to maintain existing defence capabilities
• NZDF lower-paid staff will receive a salary increase to help meet cost-of living pressures.

 

[Stuart M]

Thanks, Nga for an interesting article. We always live in interesting times, that's for sure. I too hope that this sea change in Europe due to Russia, and our own assessments of the CCP activity in the South Pacific and Solomons, will reinvigorate our NZ national security calculus.

I write that with a straight face, daring to believe that we actually have an integrated policy, from both the major parties. Today's budget may be an indicator of this trend. If I were a betting man I'd assume so.

One sad observation is that both Sweden and Finland have always taken defence seriously. For example, Sweden makes its own fighter aircraft and Finland has 200,000+ 'active' reserves and is obtaining F-35's. I'm assessing that they take their history seriously.

Whereas NZ, on the other hand, does not. As we enter the 80th year of the Battle of the Coral Sea and Midway, leading to the PNG and Solomons campaigns, perhaps now is a good time to reflect on our maritime-centric environment (or, our sea blindness), the inherent instability of world affairs (especially for small countries), and our own lack of warfighting capability (NZ pop 5 mil WRT Finland pop 5 mil).

So, long moan short, NZ is unlikely to change its defence policy based on Finland and Sweeden (and Germany) b/c we are exceptional, inwards looking, hermits.

Its sad to say that this has been a long refrain in NZ, as NZ truly has a amazing short and long term memory issue. In 1949, just four years after WW2, Major General Sir Howard Kippenberger felt compelled to say of NZ

It may be a good thing to continue doing nothing as at present and trust in the mercy of God to a people too selfish and lazy to help themselves. We can say, truly, that New Zealand cannot alone defend herself…so, perhaps, we had better leave it to others, or deny that there is any danger and get on with our amusements and the rapid erosion of our land. Or we can pull ourselves together and act as a grown up Nation.

And what has changed from that day to this?

 

[Stuart M]

New release from the government about the 2022 Budget in terms of Defense

Funding boost secures Defence capabilities

Budget 2022 sees significant resources made available for the Defence Force to maintain existing defence capabilities as it looks to the future delivery of these new investments.

www.beehive.govt.nz

TL,DR: The main highlight are:

• $662.5 million to maintain existing defence capabilities
• NZDF lower-paid staff will receive a salary increase to help meet cost-of living pressures.

So, a cost of living increase, no capacity increase after a draw down (from six to four MPA and less LAV3's) on top of a staffing problem.

At least we now know where some of the now cancelled SOPV project funding has gone.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Ngati: NZ is far removed geopolitically from Finland and Sweden. While there may be similarities ideologically between our left and there's (although our labour party is hardly equivalent to European social democrats) they have long been awake to the reality of their nuclear armed neighbour over the iron curtain.

Stuart: great kip quote. Could have been written yesterday

The budget: sadly no surprises re defence

 

[BeNiX123]

I’m curious as too how the government is going to spend the $20 billion by 2030 given we only have eight years left to the target? Or will they just abandon the plan entirely?

FYI: I’m new to this forum so if I‘ve missed anything relevant please let me know.

 

[ngatimozart]

I’m curious as too how the government is going to spend the $20 billion by 2030 given we only have eight years left to the target? Or will they just abandon the plan entirely?

FYI: I’m new to this forum so if I‘ve missed anything relevant please let me know.

Kia ora BeNiX123. Welcome to the Forum. I would suggest that read back through this thread and that would give a reasonably good understanding of the broader aspects of NZ defence and overall government attitude. WRT the $20 billion, that wouldn't even cover the proper replacement of used and worn out equipment and infrastructure, let alone reinstate necessary lost capabilities. The actual costs would be two and half times that and then we also have to find the people as well. Not just new recruits but experienced people with specialised knowledge as well. Then we would have to fund Defence properly each financial year, and not play the pauper with it, so in todays money it would have to be at least $7 billion per annum plus inflation, and that excludes the capital funding for acquisitions to bring NZDF back up to a viable and credible force that can operate along side our sole ally and partners without being a danger and burden to them. Unfortunately there is no political will to do such a thing and Maj Gen Kippenberger was exactly right when he spoke those words 73 years ago.

@Stuart M Can you please send me the citation for that quote of Kips. Thanks. I'd like it for my records, because I really like the quote.

 

[recce.k1]

SECURITY

Defence spending will rise over the next five years.

Government documents show the defence establishment will spend NZ$5.9 billion on new equipment in the five years beginning 2021/22, up more than 40% on an earlier outlook.

Minister of Defence Peeni Henare said in a statement that the defence force would receive an additional NZ$662.5 million to maintain existing defence capabilities and more money to boost salaries of lower-paid staff in the defence force.

"What we are funding today is the regeneration and strengthening of our Defence Force," said Henare.

New Zealand government forecasts narrower budget deficit for FY22

Heavy spending was targeted towards infrastructure, including new schools, and defence, while funds were also allocated to ease the impact of global inflation on New Zealanders

www.business-standard.com

Just trying to decipher the mixed messaging, at best perhaps the Govt. has recognised the need to invest more and perhaps earlier than planned, but presumably in subsequent years (for example 2023/24 or 2024/25 etc), rather than this year 2022/23 although an additional $662.5m has been provided.

Perhaps that's the start but exactly what that funding is going towards isn't very clear yet (the DefMin mentioned a "significant funding boost for depreciation expenses" in his press release outlined by Boardgamer above, but unless "we" have access to the budget documents (like the reporter quoted above) or another reporter or defence analyst provides some details we may have to wait until the Govt releases the Govt budget documents in detail. Which will be on the Treasury website.

But to give us some indications we can look back to last year's budget docs. See details of appropriations and capital injections, and Part 1 Vote as a Whole, and Part 2 Details of Departmental Appropriations etc.

But back to today's budget announcement, at worst the DefMin (IMO) has disappointed. His stated priorities were People and Infrastructure and the Pacific. In terms of People his new announcement today is "90 million over four years will go to improving the pay of lower-paid Defence Force staff". Which although is good for anyone being underpaid (exactly who, does he mean junior recruits or civilian employees), I would have liked to have seen more focus and funding on lifting pay and conditions as a whole for NZDF staff and their living arrangements, also more focus on recruitment and retention and also more focus on attracting skilled personnel for new initiatives and capability development (eg technical weapons specialisation, cyber and electronic warfare etc).

In terms of Infrastructure, it appears no new funding apart from whatever the DefMin and Defence are already working on eg improvements to existing base facilities (how about some new initiatives such as increased resilience eg increased fuel storage etc, 7or hazards/munitions storage for new capabilities for the likes of the P-8's etc, or hardening bases' critical structures against "terrorist" attacks, or looking at extending key civilian airport runways and plans for dispersal areas should eg P-8's need to operate down south in support of Southern Ocean ASW operations or up north undertaking the same functions (i.e. plan for dispersing key assets as per experiences from past world wars etc).

And in terms of the Pacific, again nothing new.

The ACT Party appears underwhelmed by today's announcement (I wonder about the accuracy of some of their statements, but the sentiment is spot on). But at least if there was to be a change of Govt in the future, at the very least they will drag the current main Opposition Party to consider greater cooperation and interoperability with our closest neighbors, which makes a lot of sense geographically and in terms of industry and Defence opportunities.

Fast Air may be back (Superhornets)? And for the Navy, highly capable Frigates.

ACT's guns and butter budget

Defence spending would jump dramatically and more state-owned companies would be floated on the share market to raise billions of dollars under ACT’s alternative budget. Mark Jennings rep

www.newsroom.co.nz

 

[ngatimozart]

The ACT Party appears underwhelmed by today's announcement (I wonder about the accuracy of some of their statements, but the sentiment is spot on). But at least if there was to be a change of Govt in the future, at the very least they will drag the current main Opposition Party to consider greater cooperation and interoperability with our closest neighbors, which makes a lot of sense geographically and in terms of industry and Defence opportunities.

Fast Air may be back (Superhornets)? And for the Navy, highly capable Frigates.

ACT's guns and butter budget

Defence spending would jump dramatically and more state-owned companies would be floated on the share market to raise billions of dollars under ACT’s alternative budget. Mark Jennings rep

www.newsroom.co.nz

That ACT budget is quite interesting with the proposed annual defence budget of $9.65 billion, exceedingly close the numbers in a proposed budget that I had sent to a colleague a few months back. Mine came to $9.6 billion and I rounded mine up to $10 billion per annum starting from FY 2023 / 24. I also steered away from the Hunter Class because of costs and looked at alternatives in order to obtain similar capability but for a better cost and enabling us to acquire 3 or 4 hulls instead of 2 or 3. I also looked at a different platform to the F-18F as well, wanting more bang for buck.

 

[kato]

Even the German Greens seem to have cast their pacifism aside, with the German Greens being the most in favour of NATO and defence spending now.

Not entirely sure where this lore of absolute pacifism of the Greens comes from (both domestic and abroad). Last time we had a SPD-Green government we got involved in a war of aggression on NATO side. And that was two decades ago, not exactly a new development.