NZDF General discussion thread

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
He was also head of the NZ Engineering, Print, and Manufacturing Union for quite a while. It's NZ largest union. His nickname amongst some circles here ia Angry Andy and it's an apt nickname. If he handles Defence like he handled Health then there could be problems. However him being the Minister in charge of the spooks might give him a better understanding of the issues. We can only hope that he's better than his predecessor.

I don't know. The Nats have said that they will be reigning in spending if they win the next election. Given their history, they'll gut defence spending.
Angry wont do better than his predecessor, not in any way that counts, despite being better informed and the same is true of National, the longterm trajectory of defence capability and capacity is downwards and it's deliberate.
Bluntly, the PLA could take up residence in NZ and I dont think NZ pollies would care so long as they got some advance notice to get the PR releses sorted.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
Let's wait and see chaps ... I mean if we see the new MinDef with a grin on his face firing a 50 cal from the hatch during the Bushmaster acceptance ceremony in April then perhaps all will bode well for the future! ;)

Seriously though there is a Defence Policy and Strategy Review underway so I doubt there will much to announce this year (and up until the election in Oct anyway). The review will be looking at a Future Force structure so those wider discussions (with Defence, Govt, Allies etc) will be of greater interest and importance (I doubt the MinDef will have too much influence (in a negative sense) as the review/scope is wider than himself - suggest his main role will to be supportive of any preliminary findings and outcomes and to take these to Cabinet for debate or agreement etc).

Let's get an insight into current Defence thinking, priorities and areas of concern. From the 2021/22 Annual review of the New Zealand Defence Force which was held late last year (an initial transcript has appeared online).

Projects: There are a number of projects underway or in the pipeline.


Defence Capability Management System: Has been reviewed and is working well (has received praise in terms of public sector deliverables).


Capabilities and increasing global geopolitical tensions: Govt MP Ibrahim Omer asked about NZ preparing for these scenarios.




On the NH90 (no major concerns being flagged at this/that point in time):


Now of course the CDF's comments were made last year. We have now learnt very recently that the AusGovt has approved new Blackhawks to replace the remaining Army MRH-90's and in a relatively quick time-frame too. So for NZ presumably this will be revisted (now that NHIndustries is losing a major role with the ADF) and how that will continue or impact support for NZ (sure they may say "yes", if so critically to what extent)?

Also asking because I had come round to thinking perhaps NZ should look at acquiring the ADF's 8 (ex-RAN) MRH-90's that are reportedly being maintained for sale (see recent ADF threads) to supplement the NZDF's existing 8(+1 attrition) NH-90's. As that would give NZDF additional capacity to better support concurrent overseas deployments and local Army training needs. Heck NZDF could even base a couple back in the South Island again for rapid response eg CT/HADR/Army support (or even pre-position 3 or 4 of them in Queensland, Australia, for rapid overseas deployment (eg hitch a ride with ADF C-17s when something is hitting the fan in Asia/Pacific). Otherwise could have some spare attrition airframes to ensure quick access to spares/parts availability. But in light of AusGovt's decision to fast-track the Blackhawk acquisition perhaps this sort of suggestion needs re-evaluating etc.

Perhaps in NZ's favor to an extent is that Airbus bought SafeAir (aircraft maintenance company), Airbus also have major on-base contracts to support the NH-90, AW-109 and T-6C Texan, so it is in their best interests to succeed.

On the Seasprite (yes there are some major concerns being flagged):


Further Seasprite questions from Opposition MP's:


Response by CDF:


CAF has stated (Air Force News) that the Seasprite replacement project is well underway so expect an early decision on a replacement type. On whatever is assessed/chosen, it is imperative an extra capability for the replacement is that it has a dipping sonar (as relying on visual contacts as currently with the Seasprite is archaic in this networked day and age. At least they can carry sonarbouys, can't they)? The logical choice would surely be a capability interoperable with the ADF with their Romeo Seahawks? This would standardise (and fast-track) training, support and munitions etc. (The NZDF Annual Review noted and thanked the ADF and USN for assisting with fast-tracking NZ's P-8 training programmes, which reinforces the benefits of being interoperable with NZ's closest allies as much as practical).

Finally lots of other discussion about personnel attrition issues (still concerning), incoming project capabilities (P-8, C-130, Network Enabled Army etc), supposedly where NZDF fits in with ADF planning and love the response about greater use of simulators (for a small defence force) to offset "emissions" as per Green Party concerns!
NZ has a truly wonderful capacity to generate many studies that have may fine buzz words that gets people chattering away, and yet actual warfighting capacity keeps going down.
In fact all of this, from the Secretary of Defence and others, is pure Sir Humphry, it holds zero credibility for me.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
NZ has a truly wonderful capacity to generate many studies that have may fine buzz words that gets people chattering away, and yet actual warfighting capacity keeps going down.
In fact all of this, from the Secretary of Defence and others, is pure Sir Humphry, it holds zero credibility for me.
Sadly that is true of many pollies and it isn’t restricted to NZ.
 

Gooey

Well-Known Member
Recce

I appreciate the details and in depth analysis. There are some interesting quotes and processes within. Sadly, as an ex operator I’m left glass half empty though: Air can’t even keep up with Australian helos let alone fast jets; Sea has a two old, 3rd rate, fighting platform capability; and, Land is now unable to support peace keeping let alone combined arms war fighting. It is truely pitiful and worse.

The WoG disregard of defence over decades is how we got here. Just in time for a strategic emergency.

Nice one Stu; Sir Humphrey indeed!!! The great thing for my tumour is that this drivel is being spouted in full knowledge that NZ has a capability crisis.

edited to correct stupidity
 
Last edited:

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
Recce

I appreciate the details and in depth analysis. There are some interesting quotes and processes within. Sadly, I’m left glass half full though: Air can’t even keep up with RAAF helos let alone fast jets; Sea has a two old 3rd rate fighting platform capability; and, Land is unable to support peace keeping let alone combined arms war fighting. It is truely pitiful.

The WoG disregard of defence over decades is how we got here. Just in time for a strategic emergency.

Nice one Stu; Sir Humphrey indeed!!!
To the Civil Service, a documentary
The public, a comedy
The politicians, a tragedy.

I have some small, tiny even, part in a civil service and I can tell you that it most certainly is a documentary.
The NZ Secretary of Defence and the politicians , quoted above, are talking much, saying little and delivering even less. Watch the trend line of capability and capacity, that's the only truth you need about what's going on.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Seriously though there is a Defence Policy and Strategy Review underway so I doubt there will much to announce this year (and up until the election in Oct anyway). The review will be looking at a Future Force structure so those wider discussions (with Defence, Govt, Allies etc) will be of greater interest and importance (I doubt the MinDef will have too much influence (in a negative sense) as the review/scope is wider than himself - suggest his main role will to be supportive of any preliminary findings and outcomes and to take these to Cabinet for debate or agreement etc).
IIRC the review is due to be released in October.
On the NH90 (no major concerns being flagged at this/that point in time):

Now of course the CDF's comments were made last year. We have now learnt very recently that the AusGovt has approved new Blackhawks to replace the remaining Army MRH-90's and in a relatively quick time-frame too. So for NZ presumably this will be revisted (now that NHIndustries is losing a major role with the ADF) and how that will continue or impact support for NZ (sure they may say "yes", if so critically to what extent)?

Also asking because I had come round to thinking perhaps NZ should look at acquiring the ADF's 8 (ex-RAN) MRH-90's that are reportedly being maintained for sale (see recent ADF threads) to supplement the NZDF's existing 8(+1 attrition) NH-90's. As that would give NZDF additional capacity to better support concurrent overseas deployments and local Army training needs. Heck NZDF could even base a couple back in the South Island again for rapid response eg CT/HADR/Army support (or even pre-position 3 or 4 of them in Queensland, Australia, for rapid overseas deployment (eg hitch a ride with ADF C-17s when something is hitting the fan in Asia/Pacific). Otherwise could have some spare attrition airframes to ensure quick access to spares/parts availability. But in light of AusGovt's decision to fast-track the Blackhawk acquisition perhaps this sort of suggestion needs re-evaluating etc.
IIRC the only difference between the RAN and Aussie Army MRH-90s is the name painted on the side.

On that note I agree that the MRH-90s currently up for sale should be acquired and one assigned as a spares airframe. That would give us 15 operational NH90 in toto. If I was going to be responsible for their distribution within NZDF, I would give 3 Sqn 11, and 6 Sqn 4.
Perhaps in NZ's favor to an extent is that Airbus bought SafeAir (aircraft maintenance company), Airbus also have major on-base contracts to support the NH-90, AW-109 and T-6C Texan, so it is in their best interests to succeed.
Of course Airbus could bring the Brisbane NH90 facility to NZ. Sure room could be found at Woodbourne for it.
On the Seasprite (yes there are some major concerns being flagged):
Same problems that they had with the SH-2G(NZ); Kaman providing inadequate after sales service, and supply of parts.
CAF has stated (Air Force News) that the Seasprite replacement project is well underway so expect an early decision on a replacement type. On whatever is assessed/chosen, it is imperative an extra capability for the replacement is that it has a dipping sonar (as relying on visual contacts as currently with the Seasprite is archaic in this networked day and age. At least they can carry sonar buoys, can't they)? The logical choice would surely be a capability interoperable with the ADF with their Romeo Seahawks? This would standardise (and fast-track) training, support and munitions etc. (The NZDF Annual Review noted and thanked the ADF and USN for assisting with fast-tracking NZ's P-8 training programmes, which reinforces the benefits of being interoperable with NZ's closest allies as much as practical).
The SH-2G(I) that we have do carry sonar buoys.

WRT its replacement, the MH-60R would be the ideal replacement, however it may not fit on the Protector Class OPVs. It's also quite expensive and as you know NZGs are allergic to expensive defence acquisitions. The other option would be the AW159 but we would be reliant on European logistics support.
Finally lots of other discussion about personnel attrition issues (still concerning), incoming project capabilities (P-8, C-130, Network Enabled Army etc), supposedly where NZDF fits in with ADF planning and love the response about greater use of simulators (for a small defence force) to offset "emissions" as per Green Party concerns!
Yes, the personnel attrition problem. They know the problem and they know how to mitigate it. WRT pay and conditions, the NZG has a reputation for a long time (1945 onwards) of being stingy with pay and allowances. Between 1946 and 1948 there were three separate mutinies specifically over pay and conditions. That was at a time when mutiny was punishable by death, so that illustrates how serious the problem was.

The USMC are divesting themselves of:
Of that list we could find a use for the AH-1Z and the UH-1Y although this would mean two new fleets to support. Whilst a heavy lift helo would be nice, the CH-53K costs as much as a F-35C. Even Germany turned up their nose at it and they'd been flying CH-53s for decades. They acquired the CH-47F instead. If I was in charge, I would transfer 3 Sqn from the RNZAF to a new NZ Army Aviation Regiment and that's where the AH-1Zs would go too. I strongly believe that the army requires an armed reconnaissance helicopter capability and the AH-1Z would fit that role because it's already marinised. The UH-1Y if we can't fit the MH-60R on the OPVs. It can be armed for fighty things if required.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If I was in charge, I would transfer 3 Sqn from the RNZAF to a new NZ Army Aviation Regiment and that's where the AH-1Zs would go too. I strongly believe that the army requires an armed reconnaissance helicopter capability and the AH-1Z would fit that role because it's already marinised. The UH-1Y if we can't fit the MH-60R on the OPVs. It can be armed for fighty things if required.
Not so sure of this as setting it up would take years to get the culture on maintenance heading in the right direction as well as pilot skills. There would be most of the current people in these roles would not want to transfer to the army as in the air force the army is considered to lack any sense of humor.
I remember back in the 1060's when we had 13 Bell B47G Sioux the army was allocated 6 or 7 flown by army pilots and had ARMY painted on the fuel tanks to get the ball roiling. They managed to crash them all in short order and the air force held on to 6 as the minimum for training purposes and that was the end of army aviation in NZ.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Not so sure of this as setting it up would take years to get the culture on maintenance heading in the right direction as well as pilot skills. There would be most of the current people in these roles would not want to transfer to the army as in the air force the army is considered to lack any sense of humor.
I remember back in the 1060's when we had 13 Bell B47G Sioux the army was allocated 6 or 7 flown by army pilots and had ARMY painted on the fuel tanks to get the ball roiling. They managed to crash them all in short order and the air force held on to 6 as the minimum for training purposes and that was the end of army aviation in NZ.
NG has made some excellent points and I'll try and respond tonight. But (NZ) Army Aviation is a different matter. I agree I don't think Army would have the technical competencies to fully take over helicopter operations (they had issues crewing their LAV's, which is a lot simpler than an attack helicopter to operate and maintain). They are focused on infantry (which is crucial) and have also ditched a lot of other "techie type" capabilities in recent decades (coastal defence systems, tanks, FSV's, Mistral sam system, Bell 47 air observation etc).

For a small nation as ours, the (defence) cultures are just too different.

Today's Army is finding a niche with UAV's and loitering munitions, these areas need supporting and expanding. The USMC has been an important visitor to our shores in recent years demonstrating these types of capabilities during exercises.


I'd also like to see Army grow its personnel numbers (more than DCP19 was advocating) to ensure operations can be better sustained/supported/rotated and the restoration of some of these lost capabilities (eg land/air/sea deployable coastal defence systems. A FSV to support the LAV's & Light Infantry for combined arms ops now that LAV numbers have been reduced to M113 APC levels, so where is the FSV capability? Would GDLS "light" MPF fit the requirements or something else (presumably "light" a la USMC conops for ease of deployment)? A replacement for the light howitzer (something mobile .... Archer? Himars? Or something better protected but "heavy" .... SPH's etc)? Or stick with "light" (eg for ease of Pacific maritime/island deployments). What are the Royal Marines intending to replace their light howitzers with? Should we align more with the RM's (or USMC) future capabilities for our maritime environment use?

I think we need to acknowledge NZDF will never be as "strong" or well funded as the ADF (with their excellent "heavy" capabilities), nor at the forefront of conflict where "heavy" is crucial. Perhaps NZ Army (Regular Forces) needs to take a niche "light" easily deployable/expeditionary role and enhance that?

If feasible provide additional helos to Air Force for general NZDF medium/heavy lift (to boost capacity) and consider armed utility/observation/recce to better support NH90 (or whatever) troop-lift ... keeping Army to operate UAV's/loitering munitions for Artillery and/or organic use within Light Infantry units?
 
Last edited:

ddxx

Well-Known Member
Given the common issue of supply in conflict for Australia & New Zealand - wouldn’t it always be prudent of us both to maintain as much commonality as possible between us both and the US?

Commonality of weapons and equipment with the UK makes very little sense, their “Indo-Pacific” “Global Britain” presence is two Patrol Vessels based in SE Asia …
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
NG has made some excellent points and I'll try and respond tonight. But (NZ) Army Aviation is a different matter. I agree I don't think Army would have the technical competencies to fully take over helicopter operations (they had issues crewing their LAV's, which is a lot simpler than an attack helicopter to operate and maintain). They are focused on infantry (which is crucial) and have also ditched a lot of other "techie type" capabilities in recent decades (coastal defence systems, tanks, FSV's, Mistral sam system, Bell 47 air observation etc).

For a small nation as ours, the (defence) cultures are just too different.
Yes I forgot about that earlier foray, but times are different and NZDF is far more joint than it was during the 1970s. I have always thought that in things like the ARH and / or rotary wing battlefield airlift, should be operated by people who think army. They would see and react to moving battlefield situations better than air force personnel because of their training, ground warfare education, and experience.
Today's Army is finding a niche with UAV's and loitering munitions, these areas need supporting and expanding. The USMC has been an important visitor to our shores in recent years demonstrating these types of capabilities during exercises.

The Russo - Ukraine war has really illustrated the importance and necessity of both UAVs and UGVs. We will require them to use and at the same time, require a defence against enemy ones.
I think we need to acknowledge NZDF will never be as "strong" or well funded as the ADF (with their excellent "heavy" capabilities), nor at the forefront of conflict where "heavy" is crucial. Perhaps NZ Army (Regular Forces) needs to take a niche "light" easily deployable/expeditionary role and enhance that? Or stick with "light" (eg for ease of Pacific maritime/island deployments). Should we align more with the RM's (or USMC) future capabilities for our maritime environment use?
An important point and questions. IMHO I will provide how I think that the army & NZDF should proceed.

Light infantry have both advantages and disadvantages WRT medium and heavy infantry. They are quicker to react and and move than their medium and heavy counterparts. They are also able to operate more discreetly because of their lightness. In major armies they are used to protect the screening of main forces because of their mobility, for reconnaissance, for their ability to infiltrate enemy lines etc. It was Ukrainian light infantry forces that were at the forefront of their successive Donbas advance due to their ability to move fast and create panic and mayhem behind the Russian lines. I would argue that the NZ Army is ideally suited for that role because of our No 8 wire mentality, and our soldiers abilities, to fight, and to think and move quickly. It's part of our DNA.

The next point is that the army has to become amphibious in capability and in its thinking. As much as they talk about the Force 35 concept, they are not focussed on the amphibious side and are basically sea blind. This isn't good when we will be operating in the Pacific, which is a vast ocean with many islands and archipelagos in our AOMI. So there certainly are some aspects of the USMC and RM that we should consider adopting. In the RM case maybe adopting their basic and branch training regime where their recruits are trained as commandos and then undertake trade / branch training. The USMC has some capabilities and abilities that would be advantageous to us and increase our fightiness. We should be working closer with them and learn from them.

WRT funding, there is no reason why the NZDF cannot be funded on par with the ADF as a % GDP. It's just the continual lack of political will that it isn't.
I'd also like to see Army grow its personnel numbers (more than DCP19 was advocating) to ensure operations can be better sustained/supported/rotated and the restoration of some of these lost capabilities (eg land/air/sea deployable coastal defence systems. A FSV to support the LAV's & Light Infantry for combined arms ops now that LAV numbers have been reduced to M113 APC levels, so where is the FSV capability? Would GDLS "light" MPF fit the requirements or something else (presumably "light" a la USMC conops for ease of deployment)? A replacement for the light howitzer (something mobile .... Archer? Himars? Or something better protected but "heavy" .... SPH's etc)? What are the Royal Marines intending to replace their light howitzers with?
We could and should have a SPG/H capability and it doesn't need to be tracked. There are capable wheeled 155mm SPG/H available that would fit well within a light infantry concept. Same with rocket artillery, such as HIMARS or the SK K239 Chunmoo. I actually think that the Chunmoo would be a better platform than HIMARS because it has better capability and would be acquired quicker due to HIMARS production backlog and long order list. Also being a US weapons system the US Army and USMC will have the highest priority. Foreign orders will be filled a lot slower, meaning longer waiting times.

I have looked at the MPF and my problems with it is that it's tracked tracked and still in the prototyping stage. There's no guarantee that the US Army will proceed with the program and the US Army doesn't have the best record for new acquisitions. OTOH we can choose non US platforms and systems that would be quicker to acquire and are already in service within NATO and / or our friends / partners. We have two paths for a FSV:
  1. A 105mm gun turret mounted on whichever vehicle we choose as the NZLAV replacement.
  2. A 120mm mortar system such as AMOS or Mjolner turrets mounted on whichever vehicle we choose as the NZLAV replacement.
We also require a mobile gun / missile air defence system and that is a very necessary requirement. It would also have to include an EW component for UAV defence.

WRT ground based coastal defence, truck mounted AShM such as the NSM would be the best solution. It also offers an offensive and A2AD capability. The USMC are moving to use them hidden on islands, able to deter a hostile naval surface force from closing in on a coast / island or to close off a choke point to a hostile naval surface force. Thats where airborne sensors come into play and where the likes of the MQ-9B SeaGuardian would be ideal.
If feasible provide additional helos to Air Force for general NZDF medium/heavy lift (to boost capacity) and consider armed utility/observation/recce to better support NH90 (or whatever) troop-lift ... keeping Army to operate UAV's/loitering munitions for Artillery and/or organic use within Light Infantry units?
The NH90 fleet has to be increased because at eight it is less than the bare minimum required. Ideally another five - eight medium sized helos should be acquired. We should also acquire an ARH, preferably one that is already marinised and in operation. I think that the AH-1Z Viper would be the optimal solution. ARH's are not just for shooting and blowing things up, but the R in ARH means reconnaissance and that's where they are the eyes of the ground force commander. They also are used to escort utility helicopters in hostile environments, with the French using Tigers to escort NH90s in Mali. Vietnam and many other wars / bun fights since have shown the vulnerability of utility helos in combat situations.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Given the common issue of supply in conflict for Australia & New Zealand - wouldn’t it always be prudent of us both to maintain as much commonality as possible between us both and the US?

Commonality of weapons and equipment with the UK makes very little sense, their “Indo-Pacific” “Global Britain” presence is two Patrol Vessels based in SE Asia …
Unlike the ADF we aren't flush with cash.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
Unlike the ADF we aren't flush with cash.
Cash isn’t a bottomless pit for anyone - but economies of scale through joint orders, common parts, training, and sustainment contracts have ongoing cost benefits for both AU and NZ. The whole picture needs to be considered beyond sticker prices.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Cash isn’t a bottomless pit for anyone - but economies of scale through joint orders, common parts, training, and sustainment contracts have ongoing cost benefits for both AU and NZ. The whole picture needs to be considered beyond sticker prices.
Funnily enough such an idea has been tried before. Didn't work.
 

jbc388

Member
Yes I forgot about that earlier foray, but times are different and NZDF is far more joint than it was during the 1970s. I have always thought that in things like the ARH and / or rotary wing battlefield airlift, should be operated by people who think army. They would see and react to moving battlefield situations better than air force personnel because of their training, ground warfare education, and experience.

The Russo - Ukraine war has really illustrated the importance and necessity of both UAVs and UGVs. We will require them to use and at the same time, require a defence against enemy ones.

An important point and questions. IMHO I will provide how I think that the army & NZDF should proceed.

Light infantry have both advantages and disadvantages WRT medium and heavy infantry. They are quicker to react and and move than their medium and heavy counterparts. They are also able to operate more discreetly because of their lightness. In major armies they are used to protect the screening of main forces because of their mobility, for reconnaissance, for their ability to infiltrate enemy lines etc. It was Ukrainian light infantry forces that were at the forefront of their successive Donbas advance due to their ability to move fast and create panic and mayhem behind the Russian lines. I would argue that the NZ Army is ideally suited for that role because of our No 8 wire mentality, and our soldiers abilities, to fight, and to think and move quickly. It's part of our DNA.

The next point is that the army has to become amphibious in capability and in its thinking. As much as they talk about the Force 35 concept, they are not focussed on the amphibious side and are basically sea blind. This isn't good when we will be operating in the Pacific, which is a vast ocean with many islands and archipelagos in our AOMI. So there certainly are some aspects of the USMC and RM that we should consider adopting. In the RM case maybe adopting their basic and branch training regime where their recruits are trained as commandos and then undertake trade / branch training. The USMC has some capabilities and abilities that would be advantageous to us and increase our fightiness. We should be working closer with them and learn from them.

WRT funding, there is no reason why the NZDF cannot be funded on par with the ADF as a % GDP. It's just the continual lack of political will that it isn't.

We could and should have a SPG/H capability and it doesn't need to be tracked. There are capable wheeled 155mm SPG/H available that would fit well within a light infantry concept. Same with rocket artillery, such as HIMARS or the SK K239 Chunmoo. I actually think that the Chunmoo would be a better platform than HIMARS because it has better capability and would be acquired quicker due to HIMARS production backlog and long order list. Also being a US weapons system the US Army and USMC will have the highest priority. Foreign orders will be filled a lot slower, meaning longer waiting times.

I have looked at the MPF and my problems with it is that it's tracked tracked and still in the prototyping stage. There's no guarantee that the US Army will proceed with the program and the US Army doesn't have the best record for new acquisitions. OTOH we can choose non US platforms and systems that would be quicker to acquire and are already in service within NATO and / or our friends / partners. We have two paths for a FSV:
  1. A 105mm gun turret mounted on whichever vehicle we choose as the NZLAV replacement.
  2. A 120mm mortar system such as AMOS or Mjolner turrets mounted on whichever vehicle we choose as the NZLAV replacement.
We also require a mobile gun / missile air defence system and that is a very necessary requirement. It would also have to include an EW component for UAV defence.

WRT ground based coastal defence, truck mounted AShM such as the NSM would be the best solution. It also offers an offensive and A2AD capability. The USMC are moving to use them hidden on islands, able to deter a hostile naval surface force from closing in on a coast / island or to close off a choke point to a hostile naval surface force. Thats where airborne sensors come into play and where the likes of the MQ-9B SeaGuardian would be ideal.

The NH90 fleet has to be increased because at eight it is less than the bare minimum required. Ideally another five - eight medium sized helos should be acquired. We should also acquire an ARH, preferably one that is already marinised and in operation. I think that the AH-1Z Viper would be the optimal solution. ARH's are not just for shooting and blowing things up, but the R in ARH means reconnaissance and that's where they are the eyes of the ground force commander. They also are used to escort utility helicopters in hostile environments, with the French using Tigers to escort NH90s in Mali. Vietnam and many other wars / bun fights since have shown the vulnerability of utility helos in combat situations.
I fully agree with what you have written but the major problem is always going to be that lack of "political will" from NZ politicians who have serious lack of understanding of local and also world events! and also anything that actually goes "Bang"!! the NZ public is very slowly waking up to the idea of world events.
The PM who has just resigned never even went to the Ukraine! while other leaders did... all talk no action!

Angry Andy will just be that... Labour/Green's will just ignore defence keep kicking the can down the road! The Nat's will reigning in spending if they win the next election.
The defence capability and capacity is in a downwards spin I do hope with a possible change of Govt later in the year the defence vote is increased to over 2% to slowly fix the mulitude of issues facing the NZDF even peacekeeping would now be an issue due to lack of capability!

I'm hoping that the RNZAF actually do receive funding for more rotary aircraft both NH90's and Aw109's but the numbers that will most likely be aquired are 1 or 2 airframes at most!! also more P-8's and C-130"S are needed as well.

The main issue now is the list of required equipment plus more personel is huge and will take 10's of years to fix at the speed NZ government works at!
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Yes I forgot about that earlier foray, but times are different and NZDF is far more joint than it was during the 1970s. I have always thought that in things like the ARH and / or rotary wing battlefield airlift, should be operated by people who think army. They would see and react to moving battlefield situations better than air force personnel because of their training, ground warfare education, and experience.
I think you are quite right and reading Army aviation history that certainly was their thinking back in the 50's/60's.

I also think successive Govt's (in those times and beyond) haven't supported defence enough to see these initiatives develop to their full potential and continuously improve them.

So perhaps for a small defence force we may have to continue to compromise and let Air Force play a leading role with manned flight? At least Air Force has that critical mass and aviation is their speciality. Also notice that the likes of other smaller allied nations like Singapore's Air Force fly and maintain their helo fleets for Army battlefield support (Apache, Chinook and Super Puma).

The NZ Army of today and into the future does though have free reign on unmanned aircraft like UAV's for battlefield ISR etc and it seems this is the direction they are getting into to support and enhance their networking capabilities.

Navy is also part of these "Network Enabled Army" projects.

Curiously Air Force doesn't appear to be part of these projects (at these levels), I would have thought there would have been a place for the likes of RNZAF Security Forces to operate these smaller UAV's for "protecting Air Force aviation assets, whilst both on the Military Air Base at home and deployed overseas" (quotes from the RNZAF Careers/Security Forces webpage) as the tasks they are "responsible for include identifying and mitigating threats to air operations, providing airbase protection (ground defence) and physical security at Air Force sites". Seems logical to me but am I missing something?
 
Last edited:

ddxx

Well-Known Member
Funnily enough such an idea has been tried before. Didn't work.
I love your opinions and insight, but this is an incredibly lazy take … If something doesn’t work the first time due to poor leadership it’s not worth trying again? Come on mate …
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
The next point is that the army has to become amphibious in capability and in its thinking. As much as they talk about the Force 35 concept, they are not focussed on the amphibious side and are basically sea blind. This isn't good when we will be operating in the Pacific, which is a vast ocean with many islands and archipelagos in our AOMI. So there certainly are some aspects of the USMC and RM that we should consider adopting.
This thought does raise the question of what additional capabilities would be required to support littoral manoeuvre and amphibious raiding by NZDF? To me it suggests that vessels capable of moving and supporting the ground forces would be needed, and not just 1 or 2.

The proposed USMC LAW or perhaps even potential LMV-H candidates are going to be required. The essential characteristics would be range, seaworthiness, usable capacity (either personnel or vehicles) and small crew size. I am sure many respondents on this site will suggest their 'preferred' vessel.

But until NZDF have identified what such a vessel must do and have even initial CONOPS developed all suggestions are moot. The decision to become truly an ampihibious force needs to be made first.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Cash isn’t a bottomless pit for anyone - but economies of scale through joint orders, common parts, training, and sustainment contracts have ongoing cost benefits for both AU and NZ. The whole picture needs to be considered beyond sticker prices.
The Nordic countries have done quite a lot in this field. They even have their own web page on collaboration: About NORDEFCO - Nordefco.

I have no inside info about this, but from the outside it looks like there are many challenges on making this work. My personal take on it:
1. The general principles have to be established at the highest political levels in both countries
2. The defence organizations in both countries must be motivated to do this, and sufficiently close in culture and organization to be able to communicate well.
3. One should define "opportunities" where in particular requirements and timelines are aligned.
4. Only then can one consider launching a collaborative effort.

They have had many failures (submarines, howitzers, and whatnot). Right now they are working on uniforms: Nordic Combat Uniform - Nordefco I guess they will have to be uniform across all the Nordic countries (I hope there is no punishment for bad puns? :) )

THey also have many working groups -- it will be interesting to see if they can make more synergies than uniforms (which is not a done deal yet): ARMA Working Groups & Activities - Nordefco

So I think it's a great idea in principle but difficult to make work in practice. Perhaps it's easier with just two countries?
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I love your opinions and insight, but this is an incredibly lazy take … If something doesn’t work the first time due to poor leadership it’s not worth trying again? Come on mate …
I think that what is the stumbling block in the road to high levels of integration between Australia and NZ is the significant level patriotic independence felt in both countries. Australia wants to rule the roost and NZ want to maintain their independent say. In other words Australia want to be big brother and NZ is not going to live in big bro's shadow.
The other question we must face is that we are an island nation surrounded by vast amounts of water and this must be our first concern in regard to defence.
The other problem we have is that the bean counters have to much control and have introduce an an accounting system which while great for businesses has a negative impact on defence. To put it quite simply decisions are made on a business basis and not on a strategic or tactical basis as the bean counters have no knowledge or training in these fields.
 

Gooey

Well-Known Member
Rob c and Nga

the failure/fizzle of Anzac CDR and closer integration has everything to do with a failure of NZ political leadership to rationally assess national security and nothing to do with the respective Staffs. The concept of common training, logistics, tactics and industry is beyond self evident and would actually help fight the NZ MoD disease of procuring tiny numbers of bespoke, non-combatant orphan systems. If I may opinion, I have seen nothing beyond banter to support a big/little brother narrative.

Actually, I am continually amazed how good relationships are between ADF and NZDF operators considering the different trajectories. More than once I have amazingly and personally seen pity for the kiwi plight. Moreover, if basic RNZN and RNZAF war fighting abilities are to be regenerated it will most likely be through the support of the respective Australian services.

As to why NZ has not generated an order of battle in proportion to its status and requirements is another question altogether. Alongside, why this has been ignored by the NZ citizenship. Perhaps a good book to write sometime!

The USMC aviation fire-sale is an interesting option: so long as the frames are actually not knackered the UH helo’s in quantity would be a great replacement for 3Sqns euro trash. As to ARH: I’d suggest RNZAF higher priority is additional P8/C130 before slaughtering whatever vertical lift capability we have by letting Army bugger up that as well.
 
Top