NZDF General discussion thread

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
Have your say... I would write something but I would not be the best person to write it and get my point across with out being angry... :-/ And it is not the NZDF fault but the bean counters and gubberment

 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Have your say... I would write something but I would not be the best person to write it and get my point across with out being angry... :-/ And it is not the NZDF fault but the bean counters and gubberment
Ok first of all that's a closed group so what's your point? What does it refer to? More context is required.
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
Ok first of all that's a closed group so what's your point? What does it refer to? More context is required.
Opps my bad... I (bloody freaking hate FBook and the the way they share and link and embed posts it is different every time I do it... not only that i hate FB in general lol doh... lol) however sorry copied the wrong link... thought it was the original from the NZDF

NZDF asking general public in a general survey about NZDF future and asking New Zealanders to participate the Defence Policy Review.


or go Engage | Ministry of Defence Website
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Opps my bad... I (bloody freaking hate FBook and the the way they share and link and embed posts it is different every time I do it... not only that i hate FB in general lol doh... lol) however sorry copied the wrong link... thought it was the original from the NZDF

NZDF asking general public in a general survey about NZDF future and asking New Zealanders to participate the Defence Policy Review.


or go Engage | Ministry of Defence Website
Thanks. I agree about faceache. It can be a right PIA.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Last year the Ukrainian Ambassador to NZ submitted a written request to the NZ government for the excess NZLAV that NZ was trying to sell. The NZ govt refused the request citing various reasons why it couldn't send them to Ukraine. This was a political decision made at the highest level. There are accusations that one or more govt bureaucrats came up with the excuses and pushed DEFMIN Henare to accentuate all the difficulties to the Ukrainians. This is quite a despicable action by the NZ Government.

The details came from a OIA request by Newsroom that somebody forgot to block out the sensitive sections of the documents before they were released.

 

chis73

Active Member
To quote from the above article:

"I will reiterate the point: there is a limited shelf life for all of these particular platforms and we know too that the LAV is a bit of an older piece of kit, and getting parts is particularly difficult."
– Peeni Henare, Defence Minister
I don't know about you guys, but I find this an extraordinary statement from Mr Henare, a man who barely 3 months previous to this (Apr 20th, 2022) had signed off on a deal to sell 22 LAVs to Chile, and still wants to sell a further 8 as excess equipment. From the 2019 Defence capability plan the LAV replacement project isn't supposed to even start until 2024 (industry engagement), with an RFT not until 2025, and introduction to service not until 2033! One wonders how certain that timeline is now given Mr Henare's statements since assuming office that timeframes are going to be pushed out. Surely, a competent decision would have been to keep the excess as spares (after all, we had kept them mostly unused for nearly 20 years already, and sold the 22 vehicles to Chile for a grand total of $19m). If there is any justice in this world we may have a new defence minister later this week.
 
Last edited:

Gooey

Well-Known Member
Nighthawk.NZ
Thanks for the link mate. Turns out you can submit more than one submission using the same IP.

chris71
To be honest, I was struck by DEFMINs meaningless word salad. It is given as if he has no respect for the question, audience, or position. Whatever mana he thought that he brought with him from 28 Battalion associate has been well washed ashore onto the beach of incompetence.

nga
This is entirely despicable. The NZ Government lack of action is both deliberate and two faced, after President Zs address to Parliament and our 'punching above our weight' tripe. In Australia or UK this would be front news and serious questions asked. Based on this alone there must be seriously pessimistic assumptions for the forthcoming Defence Review.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Guys I think a mountain is being made of a molehill here by Newsroom. Commentator Shane (who appears to have a linkage with the Army) has previously alluded to some LAV parts reaching end-of-life, needing replacement and IIRC can also be difficult to come by nowadays.

On the issue of sending "surplus" LAV's to Ukraine, my reading of the Newsroom article is it is referring to the remaining 8 that are still supposedly being offered for sale (not the original 30 - presumably negotiations were happening behind the scenes with Chile for 22 when the Ukraine war broke out in February 2022 and those 22 were therefore not available when politicians and media commentators started calling for them to be sent over).

IIRC these 30 "surplus" LAV's had been in storage for several years so presumably 22 had to be regenerated for sale to Chile? If so, that also means the remaining 8 would also need to be regenerated. This seems to align with what MinDef Henare is saying in the Newsroom article. (And pretty sure Reg talked about all this last year in the NZ Army thread when some of us were debating the surplus LAV situation).

So even if NZGovt were to change their minds and fund NZDF to regenerate the remaining 8 surplus LAV's for Ukraine (which with such a small number would be a symbolic move and not that practical in the wider scheme of internationally supplied armaments to Ukraine), it wouldn't end there for NZ or NZDF once they are shipped or flown over. Presumably NZDF would have to send over an Army support contingent (to Poland?), to maintain them (and train Ukraine personnel on how to operate them), which would be on-going for months/years. Spares and replacement parts would still have to be sent over which would probably mean cannibalising operational LAV's from NZ Army's Amoured Corps meaning training and readiness in NZ is impacted (let alone losing vital technical specialists and NCO's to Europe for months without an end date, that the Army is struggling to retain anyway/regenerate its combat and combined arms training programmes etc). Again this seems to align with what MinDef Henare is alluding to (in obviously alot less words in the Newsroom article).

Sure, could the NZGovt have said "stuff it" (and cancelled the sale to Chile) and send over 30 or so LAV's to Ukraine? Well there is much discussion on the Russian-Ukrainian War thread about the practicalities/impracticalities of Western Govts sending so many different types of kit. I suspect NZ doing it alone would mainly have been more symbolic and only somewhat practical, but also an uneconomic cost burden for such a small nation/Army as NZ (we must be one of the smallest nations offering support) as mentioned above.

BUT on the other hand if the Canadians had sent any surplus LAV III's (earlier-mid 2022 when this was being raised in NZ) or the USMC sent any surplus Strykers (and I'm not even sure if they have any surplus anyway?) and set up a logistics/support system ... which would allow NZ to "plug in" its 30 or so LAV's then sure that may have been more viable. But that never happened. And may also explain why NZDF were so hesitant to send LAV's last year.

As per the Newsroom article, NZ contributing funds to the UK to assist Ukraine to purchase SAM's for air defence seems to be a more practical priority for the Ukrainians and their infrastructure etc.

In terms of the remaining 8 surplus LAV's that are still supposedly for sale .... no-one (no other country) is going to buy a mere 8 of them. This or the next NZ Govt needs to be realistic by pulling them from the market and keeping them for attrition until the LAV's are finally replaced or upgraded.

(As the Ukraine war is reminding us (and many other nations), having fully functional attrition or stored capabilities in a necessity .... especially in these changing times as (non-democratic) country after country is now openly challenging the accepted rules based order that we have known since WW2).

Although as Chis is alluding to, to take 9 years (2024-2033) to acquire LAV replacements or upgrades is absurd. If spare parts is becoming more and more of an issue then surely unless their are significant upgrades (LAV6?) to keep ALL LAV's fully operational for another 10 years I would like to see the NZGovt explain how they will manage these issues or whether they intend to bring the replacement dates forward.
 

Gooey

Well-Known Member
Recce
Thanks for your considered points and explanation. I am attempting to put the reality hat on when digesting this. I understand we are where we are, but for NZ this is indicative of underfunding and NZGOV ignorance.
Fundamentally, the Ukraine war highlights how little our system understands national security and how little capability we have. Example: to not upgrade, organise, and send the 30 excess LAV to a nation we are allegedly supporting in a war of existence.
As per my comment about DEFMIN this smacks of a organisation which has no capacity and is uninterested.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
NZ Cabinet reshuffle announced. Henare is no longer Defence Minister. Andrew Little picks it up. Veterans Affairs still a minister outside Cabinet.
From his website "

Minister of Defence, Minister Responsible for the GCSB, Minister Responsible for the NZSIS, Minister for the Public Service, and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. "

Hon Andrew Little - List MP - NZ Labour Party

For non-NZ readers, He is also a former Labour party leader.

I suppose it cannot be said that he will be uninformed about his new portfolio. What conclusions he might reach is a different matter and this close to an election I cannot foresee much, if any, changes from him.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
From his website "

Minister of Defence, Minister Responsible for the GCSB, Minister Responsible for the NZSIS, Minister for the Public Service, and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. "

Hon Andrew Little - List MP - NZ Labour Party

For non-NZ readers, He is also a former Labour party leader.

I suppose it cannot be said that he will be uninformed about his new portfolio. What conclusions he might reach is a different matter and this close to an election I cannot foresee much, if any, changes from him.
As the leader of the Labour party he did state that he wanted to cut the $20B capital expenditure budget. I don't think he bodes well for the future.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
As the leader of the Labour party he did state that he wanted to cut the $20B capital expenditure budget. I don't think he bodes well for the future.
No, no it doesn't. Of course, there is an excellent chance Labour will not win this election and, in that case, I expect the status quo to continue.

I do see glimmer that NZ will be forced to make a choice soon, side with the West or be 'shunned', for want of a better word and everything that might entail diplomatically and otherwise.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
No, no it doesn't. Of course, there is an excellent chance Labour will not win this election and, in that case, I expect the status quo to continue.
Unfortunately the new minister's past comments over the years do not fit well with you optimism, the saving grace will be a change of government or external pressure in which case it will with the current batch, be the minimum in their minds that will decrease the pressure which will be an absolute minimum.
 

chis73

Active Member
Well, thank god Mr Henare is goneburger. I'm happy enough with that. Not "ding dong the wicked witch is dead" kind of happy, but I think there is potential there for improvement with Mr Little in the role. Of course, I'm realistic enough to know that a) there is no money, b) things are now seriously broken & c) there isn't really any time before the budget or the election for things to happen.

The NZDF could certainly do with the skills of a former union advocate at the cabinet table (unlike the Police & firefighters, the military don't have a union, or much of a public-facing association in NZ). That should be something that is changed post covid.

The first ever Labour defence minister, Fred Jones (minister 1935-1949!), was a former union man and by most accounts did reasonably well in the post, right the way through WWII. Mr Little should consider following his example.

First order of business if it were up to me would be to have wee chat with Mr Bridgman (Defence Secretary), preferably flanked by a couple of the heavy squad from SIS, about public responsibility and 'fronting up' - no more announcements of project deferrals from the Deputy Secretaries please!

I'm not holding out much hope of any new capability announcements. Really you would want something done by budget time this year. As Mr Henare doesn't seem to have progressed anything even to RFT stage over the last 2 years, I don't think there is time. Only possibility would be if the project was small, cheap and didn't involve a tender (ie it was sole source). Then Labour could say they didn't waste an entire election cycle. Of course, you wouldn't actually have to pay any real money this year, just get an order in.

SOPV is probably out (Navy can't crew their current fleet).

Replacing the maritime helicopter fleet is probably too expensive and should have to go through a tender process (MH-60R vs AW159?) However, expanding 6 Sqn by adding a few refurbished Seahawks or similar might be doable and cheap. Should be available as Excess Defence Articles ex AMARC (ie pretty much free). Would have to pay for refurbishment in the US, but SES in Huntsville or USCG in Elizabeth City could do that work. It might actually be a wise choice to diversify the RNZAF helicopter fleet now that the Seasprite fleet is at end-of-life (I reckon 2025 will be it) and the Australians are divesting themselves of MRH90 (I believe we rely heavily on Airbus Australia for our deep level maintenance - how long will that still be there?)
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
From his website "

Minister of Defence, Minister Responsible for the GCSB, Minister Responsible for the NZSIS, Minister for the Public Service, and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. "

Hon Andrew Little - List MP - NZ Labour Party

For non-NZ readers, He is also a former Labour party leader.

I suppose it cannot be said that he will be uninformed about his new portfolio. What conclusions he might reach is a different matter and this close to an election I cannot foresee much, if any, changes from him.
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.
Unfortunately the new minister's past comments over the years do not fit well with you optimism, the saving grace will be a change of government or external pressure in which case it will with the current batch, be the minimum in their minds that will decrease the pressure which will be an absolute minimum.
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.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
You could be right, though there are some sections of the party calling for increases plus ACT may be the saving grace. However I do have doubts about the current leadership in this regard. If they gut an already very gutted NZDF it could get to the point of just having a coast guard and a small peace keeping force. Calling it a defence force would be a gross exaggeration with any further gutting.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
You could be right, though there are some sections of the party calling for increases plus ACT may be the saving grace. However I do have doubts about the current leadership in this regard. If they gut an already very gutted NZDF it could get to the point of just having a coast guard and a small peace keeping force. Calling it a defence force would be a gross exaggeration with any further gutting.
Probably needs to be some serious pressure applied on NZ by the three responsible FVEY members. Otherwise Canada’s useless pollies will be encouraged to follow NZ’s path albeit being next door to the US makes the path a little more challenging but I have no doubt the Canadian electorate is just as clueless wrt defence.
 

recce.k1

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.
MoD (Andrew Bridgman, Secretary of Defence): A key focus for the period under review has been the ministry’s continued focus on the delivery of major projects, with approximately $5.6 billion in delivery, and capital expenditure next year of $1.08 billion. For the committee, it is important to note that as at June 2022 the ministry’s in-flight portfolio comprised of 28 projects. Of these, 10 are in the capability definition phase and 18 are in the delivery phase.
Defence Capability Management System: Has been reviewed and is working well (has received praise in terms of public sector deliverables).
MoD (Andrew Bridgman, Secretary of Defence): For the ministry, it is important that we continue to demonstrate that our procurement policies and practices are reflective of best practice when delivering on such significant capital projects for New Zealanders. To that end, we recently released the third and final review undertaken by Sir Brian Roche into our capability management system. It concluded that the system is a leading example of long-term capital planning within the public sector as an increasingly mature and resilient system. The system that the two defence agencies have built together enables capability to be delivered successfully in a way that meets time, cost, and quality requirements. The capability management system is a valuable asset to the ministry, and the outcome of the review is something we are incredibly proud of as an organisation. It is, however, important that we continue to look for opportunities to further improve the system.
Capabilities and increasing global geopolitical tensions: Govt MP Ibrahim Omer asked about NZ preparing for these scenarios.
MoD (Andrew Bridgman, Secretary of Defence): Perhaps if I answer the first part. Firstly, we’ve got this Defence Policy Review under way at the moment. That then will be followed by sort of a defence principles of what a future force would look like. So the critical thing about that is you’ve got a policy and the strategy that responds—that’s going to Ministers, obviously; would have to go to Ministers. It’s going to Ministers next year. So that responds to the environment that we’re in. So that specifically looks at that contestable environment that you talk about, in response to the environment with a strategy. You know, what is the defence policy and what is the strategy that we need—a defence strategy—to respond to the environment? And then that follows with a set of principles around “How do you design your force to implement that strategy to respond to the environment?” And then, at that point, if Ministers agree to those papers, then we would look at a defence capability plan going forward that would look at specific capabilities that we would need to fulfil that sort of defence design force.
NZDF (Air Marshal Kevin Short, Chief of Defence Force): If I can add that we have what I’d call an immediate concern. You’re right: the future capabilities and the changing environment and the less certain environment means New Zealand needs to look at that, and the policy review
process is addressing that.
On the NH90 (no major concerns being flagged at this/that point in time):
Just on the NH90—I mean, there’s still 600 of those airframes being operated around the globe; the Australians will still be operating theirs for years to come. We do have confirmation from NHIndustries that their system that they’ve set up in Australia to support the region will remain, because they’re now reliant on that to actually do repair and support for helicopters globally. So there’s a bit more comfort, one, that the support mechanism is still there no matter what the Australians do, but I don’t think the Australians have made that final decision with this Government.
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):
Air Marshall Kevin Short (page 12): One of the areas we are struggling in is the Seasprite helicopter—the ones that we bought off the Australians. We’re having problems with the serviceability and spare parts, and at the moment we are keeping three aircraft flying at any one time.
Further Seasprite questions from Opposition MP's:
Simon O'Connor: And then, two last quick—well, one on the Seasprites. I’ve heard, certainly, lack of supplies, but in terms of the attrition, do you have enough of the engineers required, if you had the parts, to actually install them, or is that part of the issue as well?
Response by CDF:
Air Marshall Kevin Short: No, it’s—the biggest problem there isn’t the technicians themselves. It is the number of spare parts and componentry that—it’s kind of an orphan fit; it’s a fit-out that we only operate, and it’s the spare parts to keep them going that is a problem for us.
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!
 
Last edited:

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately the new minister's past comments over the years do not fit well with you optimism, the saving grace will be a change of government or external pressure in which case it will with the current batch, be the minimum in their minds that will decrease the pressure which will be an absolute minimum.
Hah, you must be really pessimistic if you took optimism from my post. If there is change of government, they won't change much and yeah, Labour has it in for defence, but that's not new, they have been that way since their foundation.
 
Top