NZDF General discussion thread

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I have read and and in the process of digesting the Australian Defence Strategic Review 2023. There's been much discussion on it in the Aussie threads.

"1.2 At times, the strategic risks faced by Australia have been significant. In the early post-Second World War period, the onset of the Cold War, the risk of a third world war and the threat of nuclear armageddon were real prospects. Australia, however, was geographically remote from the strategic centre of gravity in Europe and the Northern Hemisphere. Regional conflicts in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s posed a threat in the near region, but no power in the (now called) Indo-Pacific could contest the United States or fundamentally challenge or change the United States-led post-war order.
1.3 In the latter Cold War period, Australia faced no direct military threat. The post-Cold War era that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union featured the emergence of the United States-led unipolar order. The Global War on Terror era, although politically and militarily very significant, did not pose an existential threat to Australia, nor to the United States-led regional strategic order.
1.4 Australia’s strategic circumstances and the risks we face are now radically different. No longer is our Alliance partner, the United States, the unipolar leader of the Indo-Pacific. Intense China-United States competition is the defining feature of our region and our time. Major power competition in our region has the potential to threaten our interests, including the potential for conflict. The nature of conflict and threats have also changed.
1.5 Regional countries continue to modernise their military forces. China’s military build-up is now the largest and most ambitious of any country since the end of the Second World War. This has occurred alongside significant economic development, benefiting many countries in the Indo-Pacific, including Australia. This build-up is occurring without transparency or reassurance to the Indo-Pacific region of China’s strategic intent. China’s assertion of sovereignty over the South China Sea threatens the global rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific in a way that adversely impacts Australia’s national interests. China is also engaged in strategic competition in Australia’s near neighbourhood.
1.6 As a consequence, for the first time in 80 years, we must go back to fundamentals, to take a first-principles approach as to how we manage and seek to avoid the highest level of strategic risk we now face as a nation: the prospect of major conflict in the region that directly threatens our national interest." PP.23 - 24.​

That, I think, sums up the issues that face us here in NZ. It is my belief that we need to consider that whilst we have Australia between us and any threats, it doesn't mean that the same threats don't apply to us. The Japanese threats and advances in the South West Pacific 1941 / 42 certainly proved that. It's something that NZ has forgotten unlike the Australians.

The DSR also speaks of resilience during times of strife, and that's something that many NZ govts have chosen to ignore, much to our peril. We have forgotten the lessons of WW2 and if we were placed in the same position today we wouldn't be anywhere as capable as what we were from 1942 - 45. This is something that we need to address promptly and the sooner the better. The timelines and urgency of the DSR equally apply here.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Apparently the Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability (EMAC) project is in motion but seemingly under a different guise. Phase One, which is looking at a Data Fusion System (DFS), appears to be known as the All-of-Government Maritime Domain Awareness (AOGMDA) project.

The article author, Tim Fish writing for Janes then suggests "the AOGMDA project is now a standalone effort" and downscaled from the original EMAC programme brief. Which is slightly confusing for the reader but presumably this is covered or interpreted from the Industry Briefing he refers to?

Anyone care to elaborate or re-interpret all of this better etc?

 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Apparently the Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability (EMAC) project is in motion but seemingly under a different guise. Phase One, which is looking at a Data Fusion System (DFS), appears to be known as the All-of-Government Maritime Domain Awareness (AOGMDA) project.

The article author, Tim Fish writing for Janes then suggests "the AOGMDA project is now a standalone effort" and downscaled from the original EMAC programme brief. Which is slightly confusing for the reader but presumably this is covered or interpreted from the Industry Briefing he refers to?

Anyone care to elaborate or re-interpret all of this better etc?

Sounds like an information collecting, collation, interpretation and dissemination system to me. Gathering all that data, understanding it and sharing it with those agencies (mil and civ) that need to know and action it accordingly seems like a worthwhile excersise to make the most efficient use of any intelligence gathered/known in any domain really.

It would make sense to have this type of programme up and running and in place prior to adding more data collection platforms to the mix to avoid information being missed, lost or otherwise forgotten I guess and readily accessible to those that require it or have insight. My take anyway.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sounds like an information collecting, collation, interpretation and dissemination system to me. Gathering all that data, understanding it and sharing it with those agencies (mil and civ) that need to know and action it accordingly seems like a worthwhile excersise to make the most efficient use of any intelligence gathered/known in any domain really.

It would make sense to have this type of programme up and running and in place prior to adding more data collection platforms to the mix to avoid information being missed, lost or otherwise forgotten I guess and readily accessible to those that require it or have insight. My take anyway.
I downloaded the DFS ROI yesterday but haven't looked at the file contents yet. Will do so in the next day or two.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
Sounds like an information collecting, collation, interpretation and dissemination system to me. Gathering all that data, understanding it and sharing it with those agencies (mil and civ) that need to know and action it accordingly seems like a worthwhile excersise to make the most efficient use of any intelligence gathered/known in any domain really.

It would make sense to have this type of programme up and running and in place prior to adding more data collection platforms to the mix to avoid information being missed, lost or otherwise forgotten I guess and readily accessible to those that require it or have insight. My take anyway.
Yes true that it's probably wise to have to have the capability to handle the data in place first... I would assume the first aspect of a DFS project would be to evaluate 'who needs what' with regard to data and establish how that data is handled...which should in theory help identify gaps in data availbility & therefore set the scope for what additional data gathering platforms may be needed.

I'd kind of suspected the EMAC project might have stalled but god knows 4 x P8 is clearly not enough for NZ to make an effective regional contribution with us having such vast SAR & EEZ responsibilities of our own let alone SouPac nations that are dependent on NZ & Oz to help provide their security... all this at a time of clearly rising tensions in the region!

Hopefully the 'tougher' line on defence that the current Defence Minister has recently made will manifest itself by the planned Defence Review highlighting NZ's need for a 2nd tier military led capability to complement the P8A but one has to wonder if the onset of COVID & natural disaters now hollowing out Govt budgets will we see anything.

The 2019 DCP clearly identified the need for EMAC as our 'maritime domain awareness' is indeed pitiful, but it soon morphed into a capability that could be contracter / civilian provided which in my mind limits it's ability to actually take load of the P8A. Frankly it's probably now got too many 'interested parties' onboard and will go round in circles for years to come!

Hopefully I've got it all wrong & @ngatimozart hopefully the ROI you downloaded will provide something tangible...and positive, although reading an ROI for a data fusion project would be about as interesting to me as watching paint dry...and I work in IT! I also know how long & fraught IT projects can be so this may be a looong ride!

Don't know about others but to be honest I usually don't bother with articles from Janes ... they can tend to be regurgitations of information that's been in the public domain for a while... but granted in this case they have provided some direction in terms of the EMAC project which they state is defunct yet apparently MOD say it isn't... so are we really any futher informed!?! It doesn't realy make a clear distinction betwen the DFS & the AOGMDA projects (or even if indeed there is one).

As for the photo caption 'The NZDF plans to procure the RQ-20B Puma for integration into the proposed Data Fusion System alongside new P-8A maritime patrol aircraft' ... well clearly the DFS won't have got to identify platforms yet so it's more a glib statement. The RQ-20B Puma is nowhere near capable of providing any significant maritime domain awareness and it certainly won't do diddly-squat for taking pressure off the P8 fleet.
 

Hawkeye69

Member
Kia Ora everyone,

I have watched the interesting and robust conversations on here for some time and this is my first time commenting.

The passion you all have for our NZDF and our service people and Country goes without question, it’s always heartening to see robust conversations over our military capability.

While my greatest wish is for the Govt of the day be it pre or post election prioritise Defence budget to 2% minimum of GDP or preferably 2:2% that’s a starting point.

The next is attrition rates, I read the transcript from select committee in November 22 that Defence expected a 30% attrition rate between December 22 and March 23, a small force structure simply cannot sustain such lose of personnel.

If we look at 4x naval vessels out of action because of lack of experienced sailors, 7 Seasprites out of action because of spare parts issues but the biggest factor effecting the Seasprites is lack of qualified technicians shows how attrition effects the overall state of play.

The first and most important thing is to plug the leak of highly valued personnel and increase salaries across the board to meet what’s on offer in the private sector, next is to add incentives to sign on for longer periods and next more base housing or community housing for personnel.

Only when you plug the leaks and stop these high attrition rates are you in a position to sit back and look at where Defence wise we need to be.

One way to help bridge the gap in technical skills would be to aligning our Defence assets to the same as Australia, our P-8’s will be getting their maintenance done in Australia and if we were to purchase the MH-60R Seahawk a similar set up could be in place, makes far more sense than trying to be jack of all trades and master of none.

After lessons from the NH-90 I cannot see any platform that’s unproven ever being a real contender, one only has to look at the T-6C Texan, P-8 to see the benefit of proven platforms and the ease of transition into service, I cannot see any other helicopter other than the MH-60R Seahawk been a real contender and yes the budget will be stretched beyond comfort levels of those in treasury but it aligns with our two major allies in our area of co-operation and those interoberbility benefits can never be under estimated nor can drawing on the operating experience of our allies operating the same plstforms, just look at how we have leveraged off the USN and Australia in regards to training our air and ground crew on the P-8.

I feel the winds are changing within the halls of power but first priority needs to be our servicepeople and then making a real committment to increasing defence budget over 2% of GDP.
 

Xthenaki

Active Member
Kia Ora everyone,

I have watched the interesting and robust conversations on here for some time and this is my first time commenting.

The passion you all have for our NZDF and our service people and Country goes without question, it’s always heartening to see robust conversations over our military capability.

While my greatest wish is for the Govt of the day be it pre or post election prioritise Defence budget to 2% minimum of GDP or preferably 2:2% that’s a starting point.

The next is attrition rates, I read the transcript from select committee in November 22 that Defence expected a 30% attrition rate between December 22 and March 23, a small force structure simply cannot sustain such lose of personnel.

If we look at 4x naval vessels out of action because of lack of experienced sailors, 7 Seasprites out of action because of spare parts issues but the biggest factor effecting the Seasprites is lack of qualified technicians shows how attrition effects the overall state of play.

The first and most important thing is to plug the leak of highly valued personnel and increase salaries across the board to meet what’s on offer in the private sector, next is to add incentives to sign on for longer periods and next more base housing or community housing for personnel.

Only when you plug the leaks and stop these high attrition rates are you in a position to sit back and look at where Defence wise we need to be.

One way to help bridge the gap in technical skills would be to aligning our Defence assets to the same as Australia, our P-8’s will be getting their maintenance done in Australia and if we were to purchase the MH-60R Seahawk a similar set up could be in place, makes far more sense than trying to be jack of all trades and master of none.

After lessons from the NH-90 I cannot see any platform that’s unproven ever being a real contender, one only has to look at the T-6C Texan, P-8 to see the benefit of proven platforms and the ease of transition into service, I cannot see any other helicopter other than the MH-60R Seahawk been a real contender and yes the budget will be stretched beyond comfort levels of those in treasury but it aligns with our two major allies in our area of co-operation and those interoberbility benefits can never be under estimated nor can drawing on the operating experience of our allies operating the same plstforms, just look at how we have leveraged off the USN and Australia in regards to training our air and ground crew on the P-8.

I feel the winds are changing within the halls of power but first priority needs to be our servicepeople and then making a real committment to increasing defence budget over 2% of GDP.
Very well presented with the main points of concern. I support you completely and hope the changes needed are working through the govt pipeline with haste and that recognition will be forthcoming in the budget this month.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Well this won't help the retention rate in the NZDF

Lets, be honest about this, from a purely career point of view, the NZDF can't even come close to offering the same degree of career opportunities the ADF does. Putting aside National loyalties for one moment and comparing the 2 Defence Forces, purely on the basis of career opportunities 90% of people would choose the ADF.
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
Lets, be honest about this, from a purely career point of view, the NZDF can't even come close to offering the same degree of career opportunities the ADF does. Putting aside National loyalties for one moment and comparing the 2 Defence Forces, purely on the basis of career opportunities 90% of people would choose the ADF.
Exactly... and could mean they take some more of experienced technicians and have a snow ball effect
 
Last edited:

RegR

Well-Known Member
Lets, be honest about this, from a purely career point of view, the NZDF can't even come close to offering the same degree of career opportunities the ADF does. Putting aside National loyalties for one moment and comparing the 2 Defence Forces, purely on the basis of career opportunities 90% of people would choose the ADF.
Australia is having the same issues as us it's just not as noticeable due to their larger mass. They were offering incentive payments as far back as the last Timor trip to retain pers in trades and to put into perspective out of all the guys there I was working with at least half were getting out on return or at least thinking about it which I found strange considering their already good pay and considerable allowances. Most I do keep in contact with seem to have moved on albeit this was a few moons ago now.

It seemed very much like a grass is greener type scenario and would seem troopies don't want to make a career out of getting shafted regardless of take home pay. The ADF has the same problem as the NZDF as well, trying to match their civilian equivalent market but tbh that's pretty much an on going issue for all militaries worldwide.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Lets, be honest about this, from a purely career point of view, the NZDF can't even come close to offering the same degree of career opportunities the ADF does. Putting aside National loyalties for one moment and comparing the 2 Defence Forces, purely on the basis of career opportunities 90% of people would choose the ADF.
The pay allowances, and conditions in the ADF are a lot better for a start.
 

Avangard

New Member
I reckon it would be interesting to see an anonymous survey sent to all NZDF members asking along the lines of "What do you dislike most about serving in the NZDF?" Personally, I think it will be much more than just pay. There's much better jobs than the military if money is your concern.

Getting these issues solved is critical or the NZDF will continue to lose relevancy. People are the backbone of delivering capability.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Pre-budget defence spending increases announced by the Government.

Personnel pay to be increased:
"The pay of many NZDF personnel, including new recruits, and skilled lower ranked service people will increase between $4,000 and $15,000 from July 1.
Upgrades to housing infrastructure:
• The defence housing investment will include $75.4 million capital and $10.1 million in operating funds for defence housing and the associated infrastructure and project costs including:
o The Government’s commitment to progress the commercial redress partnership in the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019 to build up to 50 new houses at Waiouru
o A home improvement pilot for 6 properties in Burnham and 7 properties in Linton and Ohakea
Additional CapEx funding:
The $328 million to upgrading Defence Force assets and infrastructure includes
capital and operational funds:
o $93.7 million including $35.5 million in operational funding for Communications upgrades for frigates and Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles.
o $90.7 million including $16 million in operational funds for the Ohakea fuels precinct.
o $59 million including $2 million in operational funds for the frigates sustainment upgrades.
Govt details:
Media article:
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Pre-budget defence spending increases announced by the Government.

Personnel pay to be increased:


Upgrades to housing infrastructure:


Additional CapEx funding:


Govt details:
Media article:
At least the "issues" are being addressed albeit alittle late (should never have reached this point in the first place), let the rebuild, hopefully, begin...

13 properties to be "improved" at the main bases and 50 new in Waiouru?? Wouldn't have been my priority in the overall scheme of improvements but I guess it all needs to start somewhere, just hope they maintain momentum with rolling replacements. Again long overdue as much of the housing stock is barely at market standard yet apparently warranted market rates! Still a token number as I still remember the 2 pilot houses at OH in which a house and a flat were upgraded to the new supposed standard but then it literally stopped there and all they ended up doing with the remaining housing was to install heat pumps, and that was over a decade ago!! At that rate by the time they actually improve the housing stock they will already be past due. For the housing project in particular I think a PPP initiative would potentially be a better idea in which defence/govt provides the land and a private/public/iwi entity provides the housing with removal of the older stock and rebuild of new fit for purpose modern options. Defence provides the tenants and someone else manages the actual housing as IMO can't get much better tenants than service personnel (consistent, disciplined, accountable, guaranteed wages etc) so win win, defence loses a "headache" and private gains a ready supply of somewhat reliable renters. Lots of empty sections ready to go at both Linton and Ohakea to start new builds right now even.

Good news on the payscales and should help (should), dam even I would consider signing back up if the conditions improved as well as I do miss the lifestyle even today.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Then you'd be whinging about being in. We've all done that at some stage :D

Yes I miss the life style as well.
Haha I think that comes with any job, I'm yet to find the perfect one. I find when I wake up and actually have to muster the energy just to go to work then it's time to move on as life's too short to keep doing something you hate. In saying that I would happily take a pay cut to re-live some of my military experiences again, some....

All the boys still in, army and air, still complain to this day about the same ship we did way back when, difference being the pay with some actually cracking 6 figures. It slowly grinds down anyone if you let it, sad but true.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Haha I think that comes with any job, I'm yet to find the perfect one. I find when I wake up and actually have to muster the energy just to go to work then it's time to move on as life's too short to keep doing something you hate. In saying that I would happily take a pay cut to re-live some of my military experiences again, some....

All the boys still in, army and air, still complain to this day about the same ship we did way back when, difference being the pay with some actually cracking 6 figures. It slowly grinds down anyone if you let it, sad but true.
I watched the Coronation live the other night and the ceremonial really impressed me. Of course nobody can do ceremonial and pageantry like the Poms. The RN drill movement where they went from 12 columns to six was stunning. A completely new drill movement. There will be some RSMs watching that who think that it is something to try with the troops :D I hated parades when I was in, but I would've sold me starboard bollock to have been on that one. BZ to all who participated.
 
Top