NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

Article on the rising cost of artillery shells due to worldwide supply and demand.

For NZDF, 105mm artillery shells have increased in price approx 600% since 2020.

(For the 155mm shell, from €2,000 to €8,000 apparently).

Former DefMin Henare acknowledges the Govt was aware of this after the invasion of Ukraine (and various measures have been put in place since to restrict non-essential use).

But surely costs will continue to increase as demand continues (and likely increases) and on the supply side although greater artillery shells are being produced in the West and SE Asia they are not on "war footing" scale etc.

IIRC NZ used to obtain 105mm artillery shells from Australian production lines but that would have ceased when they switched to 155mm artillery.

So what are some ramifications for NZ (due to the unintended consequences such as the Russia/Ukraine war etc)?

Stick with 105mm, accepting escalating costs? Restart ammo production in NZ again (realising that NZ is such a small market itself to be viable, but offset by Govt subsidising costs in the national interest)?

Or migrate to 155mm as the rate of cost increase is "lesser" due to greater Western manufacturing capacity including our Trans-Tasman neighbours?

Regardless no quick and easy solutions as 155m artillery itself may be years in the making also due to supply and demand (but perhaps the solution for the medium/longer term)?

As for 105mm I could be wrong but assumed that NZ may also be looking at the UK's Royal Marines options to replace their 105mm artillery (but despite some indicative designs becoming public it seems solutions may be long way away plus the UK Govt seems set on downsizing their Army and re-focusing the RM so artillery replacement solutions may not be a high priority in the greater scheme of things)?

Regardless the NZG needs to bite the bullet and acquire additional 105mm shells in the meantime (to maintain its existing capabilities, whilst exploring replacement options) as surely supply and demand will only get worse as conflicts continue and potentially new ones start.

The Press

www.thepress.co.nz

 

[Redlands18]

Article on the rising cost of artillery shells due to worldwide supply and demand.

For NZDF, 105mm artillery shells have increased in price approx 600% since 2020.

(For the 155mm shell, from €2,000 to €8,000 apparently).

Former DefMin Henare acknowledges the Govt was aware of this after the invasion of Ukraine (and various measures have been put in place since to restrict non-essential use).

But surely costs will continue to increase as demand continues (and likely increases) and on the supply side although greater artillery shells are being produced in the West and SE Asia they are not on "war footing" scale etc.

IIRC NZ used to obtain 105mm artillery shells from Australian production lines but that would have ceased when they switched to 155mm artillery.

So what are some ramifications for NZ (due to the unintended consequences such as the Russia/Ukraine war etc)?

Stick with 105mm, accepting escalating costs? Restart ammo production in NZ again (realising that NZ is such a small market itself to be viable, but offset by Govt subsidising costs in the national interest)?

Or migrate to 155mm as the rate of cost increase is "lesser" due to greater Western manufacturing capacity including our Trans-Tasman neighbours?

Regardless no quick and easy solutions as 155m artillery itself may be years in the making also due to supply and demand (but perhaps the solution for the medium/longer term)?

As for 105mm I could be wrong but assumed that NZ may also be looking at the UK's Royal Marines options to replace their 105mm artillery (but despite some indicative designs becoming public it seems solutions may be long way away plus the UK Govt seems set on downsizing their Army and re-focusing the RM so artillery replacement solutions may not be a high priority in the greater scheme of things)?

Regardless the NZG needs to bite the bullet and acquire additional 105mm shells in the meantime (to maintain its existing capabilities, whilst exploring replacement options) as surely supply and demand will only get worse as conflicts continue and potentially new ones start.

The Press

www.thepress.co.nz

British Army moves a step closer to the next generation mobile fires platform

A significant milestone in the modernisation of our artillery was reached today, following a landmark defence agreement with Germany.

www.army.mod.uk

If NZ decides to go with a new 155mm system, then the Boxer RCH-155 remote control gun system based on the Boxer would have a lot going for it. The Turret itself is fully automatic, just a Driver and Commander required in the Boxer Drive Module. Quite sure Australia would be happy to build the Drive Modules and marry up the Module and Turret at MILVEHCOE in Brisbane.

 

[OldTex]

British Army moves a step closer to the next generation mobile fires platform

A significant milestone in the modernisation of our artillery was reached today, following a landmark defence agreement with Germany.

www.army.mod.uk

If NZ decides to go with a new 155mm system, then the Boxer RCH-155 remote control gun system based on the Boxer would have a lot going for it. The Turret itself is fully automatic, just a Driver and Commander required in the Boxer Drive Module. Quite sure Australia would be happy to build the Drive Modules and marry up the Module and Turret at MILVEHCOE in Brisbane.

That would probably need NZ to buy Boxers as replacements for the LAV-IIIs before the RCH-155 would be a candidate. It is more likely that the L118/119 Light Gun will serve for many more years. Then it might be versions of the GIAT CAESAR or the BAE/SAAB ARCHER that would be the leading contenders.

 

[Gracie1234]

The Archer system has been mounted on a MAN truck. I would of thought that the more likely option.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/feature/archer--the-development-of-wheeled-artillery-with-a-new-purpose

.

 

[ngatimozart]

KC-46 may also be a worthy contender? (It has been suggested here before by a couple of the mods, with Antarctic ops in mind).

(Acquire a long range true multi-role transport/tanker and enabler and lookee-here it also does VIP .... oops we weren't thinking of ourselves say the pollies, honest guv)!

I wouldn't touch the KC-46 with a barge pole or with the nice ladies from the Velvet Touch. It's a lemon at the moment because of Boeing's shenanigans with it right from the start. They have lost a $*** load of money with their idiotic low bidding and once the first tranche has been completed the next tranches are going to cost significantly more as Boeing tries to claw back its lost money.

IF we get something like that, it will have to be the A330MRTT because it's a proven platform in service with three of the FVEY nations. More importantly it's in service with Australia and that is what will clinch it for us.

 

[ngatimozart]

British Army moves a step closer to the next generation mobile fires platform

A significant milestone in the modernisation of our artillery was reached today, following a landmark defence agreement with Germany.

www.army.mod.uk

If NZ decides to go with a new 155mm system, then the Boxer RCH-155 remote control gun system based on the Boxer would have a lot going for it. The Turret itself is fully automatic, just a Driver and Commander required in the Boxer Drive Module. Quite sure Australia would be happy to build the Drive Modules and marry up the Module and Turret at MILVEHCOE in Brisbane.

That would probably need NZ to buy Boxers as replacements for the LAV-IIIs before the RCH-155 would be a candidate. It is more likely that the L118/119 Light Gun will serve for many more years. Then it might be versions of the GIAT CAESAR or the BAE/SAAB ARCHER that would be the leading contenders.

The Archer system has been mounted on a MAN truck. I would of thought that the more likely option.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/feature/archer--the-development-of-wheeled-artillery-with-a-new-purpose

.

At the present point in time whether the LAV-III is replaced or upgraded is unknown. I suspect that if it is replaced that the NZG may go with the Boxer because of its commitment to platform compatibility, interoperability, and integration with the ADF. The Boxer would be an ideal acquisition because it is proving itself in Ukraine. On that note, I see that the Ukrainians love the CV90104 and I wonder if Australia made a mistake there in not acquiring it. That Swedish camouflage system is really paying its way.

If we were to acquire self propelled artillery, then I think that the Archer on MAN trucks would be the best solution. It is entering service with the British Army and we already have the trucks in service, albeit not enough of them. Again, the Ukrainians are loving the Archer as supplied by Sweden on the Volvo articulated chassis.

I tend to look at what is successful in Ukraine and what isn't. The Ukrainians have withdrawn their M-1 tanks because they are vulnerable to top down attacks, especially FPV drone attacks. Apparently, the Swedish version of the Leopard II has the best protection against such attacks, because the Swedes added more protection to their tanks than what the other nations Leopard IIs have. FPV drones are proving to be the nemesis of tanks, AFV & other vehicles in Ukraine, so what we need for our AFV etc., is protection against such. EW will work so much but now the Ukrainians are developing FPV that aren't reliant upon GPS and remote control.

We won't be liberating Moscow, but we will most likely be fighting against the Chinese PLA at some stage, and they are far more dangerous and technologically advanced than the Russian military. They are watching events in Ukraine and learning the lessons.

However, the existential problem facing NZDF is that it's hollowed out so much that any govt may not be willing or able to devote the necessary funds to return it to a viable fighting force. To do so we would be looking very well north of $40 billion. Last years GDP was $400 billion, so that's a minimum of 10% GDP required just to re-equip NZDF without looking at personnel, munitions, logistics, training, support, infrastructure etc., and did I mention personnel. If we reach 2% GDP we would still require an additional 0.5 - 1% GDP per annum for 10 - 15 years in order to undertake the re-equipment. No matter who controls the Treasury Benches any government will have competing and equally important funding demands.

Finally, the Key govt of 2015 drafted a $20 billion shopping list in the guise of a DCP. They didn't fund it and that is why I am suspicious of the new DCP. Will they fund it? Or will it be just another piece of political dunny paper?

 

[Redlands18]

At the present point in time whether the LAV-III is replaced or upgraded is unknown. I suspect that if it is replaced that the NZG may go with the Boxer because of its commitment to platform compatibility, interoperability, and integration with the ADF. The Boxer would be an ideal acquisition because it is proving itself in Ukraine. On that note, I see that the Ukrainians love the CV90104 and I wonder if Australia made a mistake there in not acquiring it. That Swedish camouflage system is really paying its way.

If we were to acquire self propelled artillery, then I think that the Archer on MAN trucks would be the best solution. It is entering service with the British Army and we already have the trucks in service, albeit not enough of them. Again, the Ukrainians are loving the Archer as supplied by Sweden on the Volvo articulated chassis.

I tend to look at what is successful in Ukraine and what isn't. The Ukrainians have withdrawn their M-1 tanks because they are vulnerable to top down attacks, especially FPV drone attacks. Apparently, the Swedish version of the Leopard II has the best protection against such attacks, because the Swedes added more protection to their tanks than what the other nations Leopard IIs have. FPV drones are proving to be the nemesis of tanks, AFV & other vehicles in Ukraine, so what we need for our AFV etc., is protection against such. EW will work so much but now the Ukrainians are developing FPV that aren't reliant upon GPS and remote control.

We won't be liberating Moscow, but we will most likely be fighting against the Chinese PLA at some stage, and they are far more dangerous and technologically advanced than the Russian military. They are watching events in Ukraine and learning the lessons.

However, the existential problem facing NZDF is that it's hollowed out so much that any govt may not be willing or able to devote the necessary funds to return it to a viable fighting force. To do so we would be looking very well north of $40 billion. Last years GDP was $400 billion, so that's a minimum of 10% GDP required just to re-equip NZDF without looking at personnel, munitions, logistics, training, support, infrastructure etc., and did I mention personnel. If we reach 2% GDP we would still require an additional 0.5 - 1% GDP per annum for 10 - 15 years in order to undertake the re-equipment. No matter who controls the Treasury Benches any government will have competing and equally important funding demands.

Finally, the Key govt of 2015 drafted a $20 billion shopping list in the guise of a DCP. They didn't fund it and that is why I am suspicious of the new DCP. Will they fund it? Or will it be just another piece of political dunny paper?

I really do think NZ does need to be looking at replacing their 105mm as a priority, it is an obsolete calibre and development has basically stopped, they would be extremely vulnerable to counter-battery fire. Time to move to 155mm, with ongoing development of shells to improve range and hitting power. Plenty of wheeled options, Archer mounted on Man trucks would probably be the best bet.

 

[Hawkeye69]

At the present point in time whether the LAV-III is replaced or upgraded is unknown. I suspect that if it is replaced that the NZG may go with the Boxer because of its commitment to platform compatibility, interoperability, and integration with the ADF. The Boxer would be an ideal acquisition because it is proving itself in Ukraine. On that note, I see that the Ukrainians love the CV90104 and I wonder if Australia made a mistake there in not acquiring it. That Swedish camouflage system is really paying its way.

If we were to acquire self propelled artillery, then I think that the Archer on MAN trucks would be the best solution. It is entering service with the British Army and we already have the trucks in service, albeit not enough of them. Again, the Ukrainians are loving the Archer as supplied by Sweden on the Volvo articulated chassis.

I tend to look at what is successful in Ukraine and what isn't. The Ukrainians have withdrawn their M-1 tanks because they are vulnerable to top down attacks, especially FPV drone attacks. Apparently, the Swedish version of the Leopard II has the best protection against such attacks, because the Swedes added more protection to their tanks than what the other nations Leopard IIs have. FPV drones are proving to be the nemesis of tanks, AFV & other vehicles in Ukraine, so what we need for our AFV etc., is protection against such. EW will work so much but now the Ukrainians are developing FPV that aren't reliant upon GPS and remote control.

We won't be liberating Moscow, but we will most likely be fighting against the Chinese PLA at some stage, and they are far more dangerous and technologically advanced than the Russian military. They are watching events in Ukraine and learning the lessons.

However, the existential problem facing NZDF is that it's hollowed out so much that any govt may not be willing or able to devote the necessary funds to return it to a viable fighting force. To do so we would be looking very well north of $40 billion. Last years GDP was $400 billion, so that's a minimum of 10% GDP required just to re-equip NZDF without looking at personnel, munitions, logistics, training, support, infrastructure etc., and did I mention personnel. If we reach 2% GDP we would still require an additional 0.5 - 1% GDP per annum for 10 - 15 years in order to undertake the re-equipment. No matter who controls the Treasury Benches any government will have competing and equally important funding demands.

Finally, the Key govt of 2015 drafted a $20 billion shopping list in the guise of a DCP. They didn't fund it and that is why I am suspicious of the new DCP. Will they fund it? Or will it be just another piece of political dunny paper?

we will not be fighting the PLA, China is our biggest trading partner.

 

[Rob c]

we will not be fighting the PLA, China is our biggest trading partner.

Never say never, what the future holds is unknown to us mortals. Our freedom is more important than trade and that may some time in the future may be the choice we have.

 

[Hawkeye69]

Never say never, what the future holds is unknown to us mortals. Our freedom is more important than trade and that may some time in the future may be the choice we have.

Totally agree, one thing import at present is greater diversification of trade, very dangerous putting all your eggs into the one basket, need to spread much further out than we do at present.

 

[Redlands18]

we will not be fighting the PLA, China is our biggest trading partner.

It's also Australia's biggest trading partner, hasn't stopped China from committing several aggressive acts against ADF forces in International waters.

Australia accuses China of unsafe conduct after RAN divers injured

The Federal Government has accused the People’s Republic of China of unsafe and unprofessional conduct after Royal Australian Navy divers were injured by a People’s Liberation Army-Navy destroye

www.defenceconnect.com.au

PM slams China over interception of Australian helicopter

Anthony Albanese today described the dropping of flares by a Chinese military jet in front of an Australian...

www.9news.com.au

Chinese interception of P-8A Poseidon on 26 May 2022

Defence advises that on 26 May 2022, a RAAF P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft was intercepted by a Chinese J-16 fighter aircraft during a routine maritime surveillance activity in international airspace in the South China Sea region. The intercept resulted in a dangerous manoeuvre which posed a...

www.defence.gov.au

What happened when a Chinese ship shone a laser at an Australian plane – and why does it matter?

With the stakes rising and an election looming, Beijing’s apparent escalation must be handled firmly but delicately

www.theguardian.com

Chinese Guided Missile Destroyer Aims Laser At RAAF P-8A Maritime Patrol Aircraft

A Royal Australian Air Force P-8A Poseidon was lased by a People’s Liberation Army – Navy (PLAN) vessel. On Feb. 17, 2022, an RAAF P-8A Poseidon maritime

theaviationist.com

The last one was in the Torres Straight,

 

[Shanesworld]

we will not be fighting the PLA, China is our biggest trading partner.

I believe through the 1930's Germany became Britain's major European trading partner after the French and at one point overtook them. They had a bit of a tiff.

 

[hauritz]

we will not be fighting the PLA, China is our biggest trading partner.

China being your biggest trading partner will cease to be relevant if a shooting war starts. However international trade may be the thing that helps prevent any war breaking out in the first place. China has yet to become self-sufficient in areas such as food, energy and raw materials.

 

[RegR]

At the present point in time whether the LAV-III is replaced or upgraded is unknown. I suspect that if it is replaced that the NZG may go with the Boxer because of its commitment to platform compatibility, interoperability, and integration with the ADF. The Boxer would be an ideal acquisition because it is proving itself in Ukraine. On that note, I see that the Ukrainians love the CV90104 and I wonder if Australia made a mistake there in not acquiring it. That Swedish camouflage system is really paying its way.

If we were to acquire self propelled artillery, then I think that the Archer on MAN trucks would be the best solution. It is entering service with the British Army and we already have the trucks in service, albeit not enough of them. Again, the Ukrainians are loving the Archer as supplied by Sweden on the Volvo articulated chassis.

I tend to look at what is successful in Ukraine and what isn't. The Ukrainians have withdrawn their M-1 tanks because they are vulnerable to top down attacks, especially FPV drone attacks. Apparently, the Swedish version of the Leopard II has the best protection against such attacks, because the Swedes added more protection to their tanks than what the other nations Leopard IIs have. FPV drones are proving to be the nemesis of tanks, AFV & other vehicles in Ukraine, so what we need for our AFV etc., is protection against such. EW will work so much but now the Ukrainians are developing FPV that aren't reliant upon GPS and remote control.

We won't be liberating Moscow, but we will most likely be fighting against the Chinese PLA at some stage, and they are far more dangerous and technologically advanced than the Russian military. They are watching events in Ukraine and learning the lessons.

However, the existential problem facing NZDF is that it's hollowed out so much that any govt may not be willing or able to devote the necessary funds to return it to a viable fighting force. To do so we would be looking very well north of $40 billion. Last years GDP was $400 billion, so that's a minimum of 10% GDP required just to re-equip NZDF without looking at personnel, munitions, logistics, training, support, infrastructure etc., and did I mention personnel. If we reach 2% GDP we would still require an additional 0.5 - 1% GDP per annum for 10 - 15 years in order to undertake the re-equipment. No matter who controls the Treasury Benches any government will have competing and equally important funding demands.

Finally, the Key govt of 2015 drafted a $20 billion shopping list in the guise of a DCP. They didn't fund it and that is why I am suspicious of the new DCP. Will they fund it? Or will it be just another piece of political dunny paper?

I would have thought by now we would have realised just because Australia gets something doesn't then mean NZ should as well, prime example NH90. One of the main considerstions in its selection was because our neighbours were aqquiring it and now look were it has got us? Not saying that we are in a bad place with the 90s in fact we are obviously doing pretty well, but just imagine if we had of went down the blackhawk path instead originally? Ironically we would now be operating the same helo type...

There are some platforms that benefit from being interoperable in terms of future development, mutual upgrade pathways and a logistics train set up that we could then leverage but these are mainly the more expensive, fewer, tech heavy fleets like P8s rather than the larger bulk generic and comparatively simpler fleets ie spec aircraft vs say transport vehicles, yes nice to have same same but not need to have especially if it's more tailored to "their" needs not nesscessarily "ours". Again the main focus is more about interoperable TTPs rather than exact equipment sometimes as in all honesty we don't actually share that much gear but use it in the same way in a more application than operation type consideration. It's abit like expecting us to get hunter frigates because Australia is just because we had ANZACs but that was more from a common beneficial industry standpoint more than commonality aspect as literally from day dot both navies types veered off on their respective paths in terms of fitout, options and upgrades to the point the only thing they now share is class name.

Boxer is another one of these imo (and who exactly is/has proved them in Ukraine btw?), suits Australia down to a T but with us I'm just not so sure. Yes a fine vehicle no doubt but as our primary armoured vehicle?? I still see just as much benefit in going the LAV6.0 route from not only an operational consideration but also cost point. We have not had the same armoured vehicles for quite some time now and really, has it even mattered? In fact most of our equipment is different, same overall type and use just differing versions so again its more down to similar ideally same baseline use and operation with a common supply (calibre, ammunition, fuel, systems etc) chain rather than identical kit.

The Brits have actually decided on the boxer RCH155 rather than archer (which was a UOR gap fill to replace donated AS90s) which kinda makes sense as they are already a major boxer customer and already have (or at least will have) the base fleet. So potentially there could be 14 archer platforms coming onto the market (brits do like disposing of assets) otherwise ideally we upgrade to the MAN 8x8 archers (which is the more proven system anyway) and which also would be new builds anyway (along with added support HXs) so would have no bearing on current numbers other than overall fleet expansion. But agreed, the time of towed artillery of old is past use by and the age of shoot and scoot mobility and accuracy is here. Ukraine has proven the transition with some devasting effect so hopefully someone here in the know is taking notes and filing a plan.

I also don't see us going to war with China despite what the US and Australia say but just like Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan etc we will be in attendance in more of a support role (someone has to be diplomatic about this all) and if there was to be a war it would be centred around Taiwan not Taupo (or Toowoomba for that matter) despite all the supposed scenarios suggesting otherwise. It's alittle like thinking Russia is somehow going to sweep across Europe when they are stumbling over the neighbours fence in Ukraine and paying a high cost for just that! The further the fight the thinner the might and yes China will be watching Ukraine and learning, just like the rest of us, their abilities and limitations. If people think the Ukrainian war has thrown the world into an inconvenient chaos the Taiwanese war will literally knock the planet for a six!

 

[Rob c]

I also don't see us going to war with China despite what the US and Australia say but just like Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan etc we will be in attendance in more of a support role (someone has to be diplomatic about this all) and if there was to be a war it would be centred around Taiwan not Taupo (or Toowoomba for that matter) despite all the supposed scenarios suggesting otherwise. It's alittle like thinking Russia is somehow going to sweep across Europe when they are stumbling over the neighbours fence in Ukraine and paying a high cost for just that! The further the fight the thinner the might and yes China will be watching Ukraine and learning, just like the rest of us, their abilities and limitations. If people think the Ukrainian war has thrown the world into an inconvenient chaos the Taiwanese war will literally knock the planet for a six!

Predicting the future is fraught with danger and in a decade or two the situation can be very different with a very different threats in our area. Whether China has moved into the islands of the south pacific or India has gone rouge, may be NK has nuked Japan, who knows. Just remember that from the Versailles treaty to WW2 was just 18 years. What is needed for NZ is to be able to protect our own Sovereignty first and to contribute to regional defence. To have a mind set that we say this won't happen or this will, has proven in history to be very dangerous.

 

[RegR]

Predicting the future is fraught with danger and in a decade or two the situation can be very different with a very different threats in our area. Whether China has moved into the islands of the south pacific or India has gone rouge, may be NK has nuked Japan, who knows. Just remember that from the Versailles treaty to WW2 was just 18 years. What is needed for NZ is to be able to protect our own Sovereignty first and to contribute to regional defence. To have a mind set that we say this won't happen or this will, has proven in history to be very dangerous.

Exactly, trying to predict the future is dangerous but then trying to fund every possibility based on?...........is even more dangerous on a limited budget (and it is limited!!!) We don't want a return of the Jack of all trades master of none mantra as cool as it was.

Sure, we don't want to re-live the past but then we don't want to live in the past either, think we all agree times have changed and are changing, to what though seems to be the ongoing debate.

 

[spoz]

Point of order -Treaty of Versailles signed 28 June 1919, so interval to WW2 20 years, two months and 5 days (or 3 if you are Polish and ignore the war with Russia 1919-21). Doesn’t invalidate the argument, however.

 

[Rob c]

Exactly, trying to predict the future is dangerous but then trying to fund every possibility based on?...........is even more dangerous on a limited budget (and it is limited!!!) We don't want a return of the Jack of all trades master of none mantra as cool as it was.

What I am saying is that you get your basic defence in order first so as to protect your sovereignty and freedom. If you fail to achieve this you are not doing anything else. Just make sure we have the ability to control the approaches to NZ. Once you have this ability you can look at other capabilities.
On the question of budget, how much is our freedom and sovereignty worth? I will repeat something I said earlier, during the 1980s our defence budget was on average 2.5% GDP, the last 3 decades it is averaging less than 1.5% Our pollies have been living in a fools world of it will never happen to us.
Do the maths, current GDP is around $400B so in current terms over 1% times over 30 years is over $120B that defence has been deprived of in todays values. This needs to stop! Every time the pollies find that they need to cut expenditure they cut defence amongst other things but when the situation improves other budgets go up but not defence in real terms, so it ha been a steady downward spiral for defence Our freedom and sovereignty deserves better than this.

 

[Xthenaki]

At the present point in time whether the LAV-III is replaced or upgraded is unknown. I suspect that if it is replaced that the NZG may go with the Boxer because of its commitment to platform compatibility, interoperability, and integration with the ADF. The Boxer would be an ideal acquisition because it is proving itself in Ukraine. On that note, I see that the Ukrainians love the CV90104 and I wonder if Australia made a mistake there in not acquiring it. That Swedish camouflage system is really paying its way.

If we were to acquire self propelled artillery, then I think that the Archer on MAN trucks would be the best solution. It is entering service with the British Army and we already have the trucks in service, albeit not enough of them. Again, the Ukrainians are loving the Archer as supplied by Sweden on the Volvo articulated chassis.

I tend to look at what is successful in Ukraine and what isn't. The Ukrainians have withdrawn their M-1 tanks because they are vulnerable to top down attacks, especially FPV drone attacks. Apparently, the Swedish version of the Leopard II has the best protection against such attacks, because the Swedes added more protection to their tanks than what the other nations Leopard IIs have. FPV drones are proving to be the nemesis of tanks, AFV & other vehicles in Ukraine, so what we need for our AFV etc., is protection against such. EW will work so much but now the Ukrainians are developing FPV that aren't reliant upon GPS and remote control.

We won't be liberating Moscow, but we will most likely be fighting against the Chinese PLA at some stage, and they are far more dangerous and technologically advanced than the Russian military. They are watching events in Ukraine and learning the lessons.

However, the existential problem facing NZDF is that it's hollowed out so much that any govt may not be willing or able to devote the necessary funds to return it to a viable fighting force. To do so we would be looking very well north of $40 billion. Last years GDP was $400 billion, so that's a minimum of 10% GDP required just to re-equip NZDF without looking at personnel, munitions, logistics, training, support, infrastructure etc., and did I mention personnel. If we reach 2% GDP we would still require an additional 0.5 - 1% GDP per annum for 10 - 15 years in order to undertake the re-equipment. No matter who controls the Treasury Benches any government will have competing and equally important funding demands.

Finally, the Key govt of 2015 drafted a $20 billion shopping list in the guise of a DCP. They didn't fund it and that is why I am suspicious of the new DCP. Will they fund it? Or will it be just another piece of political dunny paper?

With the new DCP hopefully coming over the horizon next month it will be interesting to see what will be seen as the most urgent priority to be funded first up. The GOD have already committed to increased pay and retention incentives in the May 30th 2024 budget but any major spending will await the recommendations of the DCP. What is the most needed requirement for replacement or acquisition. Some items that come to mind are munitions LRASM's and 105mm artillery shells. Replacement helos for the Navy and additions for the Air force. MRTT330's would be a start. On another topic with legislation coming into effect regarding control of gangs in NZ I cannot see the Police handling this problem by themselves without the back up of the NZDF especially if things turn pear shaped. So the GOD will require more funds in this area if needed.

 

[RegR]

What I am saying is that you get your basic defence in order first so as to protect your sovereignty and freedom. If you fail to achieve this you are not doing anything else. Just make sure we have the ability to control the approaches to NZ. Once you have this ability you can look at other capabilities.
On the question of budget, how much is our freedom and sovereignty worth? I will repeat something I said earlier, during the 1980s our defence budget was on average 2.5% GDP, the last 3 decades it is averaging less than 1.5% Our pollies have been living in a fools world of it will never happen to us.
Do the maths, current GDP is around $400B so in current terms over 1% times over 30 years is over $120B that defence has been deprived of in todays values. This needs to stop! Every time the pollies find that they need to cut expenditure they cut defence amongst other things but when the situation improves other budgets go up but not defence in real terms, so it ha been a steady downward spiral for defence Our freedom and sovereignty deserves better than this.

Are you predicting we have lost our freedom and sovereignty or stating it? If we are assuming we are losing it than what exactly is this based on and are we guessing that somehow adding a few jets, a frigate and whatever else is on the wishlist is going to somehow stop this thing that we predict could possibly happen that has not happened yet?

Not sure if you have noticed but the NZDF is in abit of strife at the moment so tbh any new funding above and beyond is going to barely pay to build up what we have (to what it recently was at the least), try to maintain it to some kind of professional standard and maybe just maybe retain it. You can quote the budget and percentages of GDP till the cows come home to produce milk but we are living in the actual reality right now and I wouldn't exactly say the country in general is humming along is it and tbh hasn't for quite awhile. To put it bluntly the country has priorities just like the NZDF does and I doubt there will be any great movements, upgrades or changes, just like the NZDF... The only reason the govt is pretending to throw money at the NZDF for the moment is literally out of sheer desperation to prevent the collapse of what little we have and not some far off notion of building up some great south pacific war machine to counter some maybe, possibly, could be theories centred on a country that has literally never left its own zip code never mind threatened our freedom and sovereignty.

Hate to burst your bubble but we would be doing extremely well to get current personnel numbers and infrastructure alone back up to full strength, capability and experience rather than adding entire squadrons, crews and capabilities and that in itself is going to require some major direct and ongoing investment to achieve, sad but true.