NZDF General discussion thread

[InterestedParty]

Last week, the media was talking about the record number of net departures of NZ citizens - 52,500 of which 39% were 18-30, prime age for the NZDF,
Would this be having a significant effect on the manning of the ships
NZ sets new record net migration loss as Kiwis move to Australia in droves

 

[kiwi in exile]

You should have seen her talking to Sky News then!

"Crusher Collins" means business: Defence Minister unveils new New Zealand flag.


View attachment 51335

Doesn't inspire much confidence. Is there a conflict between her role as mindef and her/husband's/national party's commercial interests in china.

PS: sky news Australia???

 

[Rob c]

"Commission of picked wise men"??? Sounds very biblical but obviously not that wise considering they couldnt even convince a party of other elected smart people the supposed importance and need of a strike wing that is apparently vital to save the country. Those smart people must be just kicking themselves now they didnt take their advice and heed their warning way back then? Right?

A

We have freedom and sovereignty, we have not lost it and never have and strike jets obviously do not "guarantee" this as it has even been over 20 years without them guaranteeing this.

gain you have distorted or fail to understand what was said, what I was referring to was the Defence review committee which is still in session and release an interim report stating that the strategic situation for NZ had significantly deteriorated, That was when the then Minister of defence stated that the Defence force in its current form was not fit for purpose.

Using the Ukraine/Russian war as an example shows a complete lack of any military knowledge. That is a land battle well within the combat radius of Russian combat aircraft. So not then exactly relative to NZ is it.

I was using as an example of how the international situation can change, again you have tried to distort what was said. I said nothing regarding whether the actual combat was relevant in a NZ situation and as you have pointed out it is not. Another thought is Japan in the first quarter of the 20th century they were a strong allied nation who even provided escorting forces during WW1 for or troops heading to the battlefields in the Middle East and Europe, I think it would be fair to say that after that first quarter century the position deteriorated some what.over the next 20 years.

We have freedom and sovereignty, we have not lost it and never have and strike jets obviously do not "guarantee" this as it has even been over 20 years without them guaranteeing this.

There are no guarantees for the future and the lack of strike squadron had nothing to do with our staying out of trouble and retaining our sovereignty over this period, it was simply the way the international situation was playing out at the time and trying to link The lack of defence to this and say that it was all because of the lack of a strike force is a phantasy.

he simple, more practical and cost effective soloution would be to just not let your daughter drive your car in the first place, park your sons truck in a secure yard and get your wiring checked. Being abit emotive don't you think?

No, again you misrepresent what is being said, They are simply everyday examples of what can happen and do happen to people across the country. In my life I have seen multiple examples of when s--t happens often without warning and without the people involved being able to counter it. The same happens on the international stage.

Also check "spell check" before you post.

Did I miss one, sorry

I'm not debating anything, it's happened, for quite some time now as well. You seem to think I'm the one needing to prove my case? Nope.

Yep, As it goes against most wisdom, now currently being expressed by people around the world who are far more expert than either Me or you. There is also the matter of you requiring proof and/or explanations from everyone else.

 

[Gracie1234]

My two cents here.
Our current security environment that we live in is now more volatile than it has been in many many decades perhaps since WW2. This is the official position. Our current defence force that we have was built to support a different environment, less volatile and therefore we allowed our combat capabilities to reduce over time.
The big decision is how will we respond to this new environment. The fact that we are even discussing joining AUKUS shows to me a lean towards our historical partners who are stronger than us, as we are too small to stand alone. But because we are small does not mean that we do not need to contribute if we want their security support. I predict over 3-5 years our funding will get to 2% GDP.
As for funds, we have the money it is just a matter of prioritisation. Simple. Always has been.
Our GDP for 2023 was $405B. 2% of that is $8B. The Nato standard towards new kit is 20% of your budget, which is $2B a year.
The defence capability plan is out to 2040, 16 years.
From a Nato standpoint, we are Nato partners, what capability could be built with 40B of new kit over 16 years. This may seem unrealistic to some, but not compared to what other partners are doing and the change in the strategic environment. Please note, no one blinked when the Hercs and P8s were bought for Billions of dollars.
An Air Combat Force, could that be done for $10B?
A navy of 4 Frigates?
An additional hardened Battalion built for higher intensity?
Two transport vessels?
Drones across all domains?

Our Finance Minister was sitting next to Poland and Ukraine at a meeting in Europe not long ago, the fact that Ukraine is at war for survival and that Poland is spending 4% GDP on defence for a just in case scenario had a visible effect on her. Investing in deterrence is now understood at the top table. The cost of not investing is understood. We spend a little now or potential a lot later.
The other aspect to this is trade, our trade Minister has stated that Trade and Security are linked. This is not a statement that would of been made 5 years ago. We will not progress trade in SE Asia or with India without demonstrating that we put our resources where our mouths are.

 

[RegR]

A


gain you have distorted or fail to understand what was said, what I was referring to was the Defence review committee which is still in session and release an interim report stating that the strategic situation for NZ had significantly deteriorated, That was when the then Minister of defence stated that the Defence force in its current form was not fit for purpose.

I was using as an example of how the international situation can change, again you have tried to distort what was said. I said nothing regarding whether the actual combat was relevant in a NZ situation and as you have pointed out it is not. Another thought is Japan in the first quarter of the 20th century they were a strong allied nation who even provided escorting forces during WW1 for or troops heading to the battlefields in the Middle East and Europe, I think it would be fair to say that after that first quarter century the position deteriorated some what.over the next 20 years.

There are no guarantees for the future and the lack of strike squadron had nothing to do with our staying out of trouble and retaining our sovereignty over this period, it was simply the way the international situation was playing out at the time and trying to link The lack of defence to this and say that it was all because of the lack of a strike force is a phantasy.

No, again you misrepresent what is being said, They are simply everyday examples of what can happen and do happen to people across the country. In my life I have seen multiple examples of when s--t happens often without warning and without the people involved being able to counter it. The same happens on the international stage.

Did I miss one, sorry

Yep, As it goes against most wisdom, now currently being expressed by people around the world who are far more expert than either Me or you. There is also the matter of you requiring proof and/or explanations from everyone else.

Actually, that was your own comment re Ukraine, I just read it back to you...

A


gain you have distorted or fail to understand what was said, what I was referring to was the Defence review committee which is still in session and release an interim report stating that the strategic situation for NZ had significantly deteriorated, That was when the then Minister of defence stated that the Defence force in its current form was not fit for purpose.

I was using as an example of how the international situation can change, again you have tried to distort what was said. I said nothing regarding whether the actual combat was relevant in a NZ situation and as you have pointed out it is not. Another thought is Japan in the first quarter of the 20th century they were a strong allied nation who even provided escorting forces during WW1 for or troops heading to the battlefields in the Middle East and Europe, I think it would be fair to say that after that first quarter century the position deteriorated some what.over the next 20 years.

There are no guarantees for the future and the lack of strike squadron had nothing to do with our staying out of trouble and retaining our sovereignty over this period, it was simply the way the international situation was playing out at the time and trying to link The lack of defence to this and say that it was all because of the lack of a strike force is a phantasy.

No, again you misrepresent what is being said, They are simply everyday examples of what can happen and do happen to people across the country. In my life I have seen multiple examples of when s--t happens often without warning and without the people involved being able to counter it. The same happens on the international stage.

Did I miss one, sorry

Yep, As it goes against most wisdom, now currently being expressed by people around the world who are far more expert than either Me or you. There is also the matter of you requiring proof and/or explanations from everyone else.

Nice to see a few edits there....was wondering if you'd pick up that was actually your own comment and quips I used.

 

[RegR]

A


gain you have distorted or fail to understand what was said, what I was referring to was the Defence review committee which is still in session and release an interim report stating that the strategic situation for NZ had significantly deteriorated, That was when the then Minister of defence stated that the Defence force in its current form was not fit for purpose.

I was using as an example of how the international situation can change, again you have tried to distort what was said. I said nothing regarding whether the actual combat was relevant in a NZ situation and as you have pointed out it is not. Another thought is Japan in the first quarter of the 20th century they were a strong allied nation who even provided escorting forces during WW1 for or troops heading to the battlefields in the Middle East and Europe, I think it would be fair to say that after that first quarter century the position deteriorated some what.over the next 20 years.

There are no guarantees for the future and the lack of strike squadron had nothing to do with our staying out of trouble and retaining our sovereignty over this period, it was simply the way the international situation was playing out at the time and trying to link The lack of defence to this and say that it was all because of the lack of a strike force is a phantasy.

No, again you misrepresent what is being said, They are simply everyday examples of what can happen and do happen to people across the country. In my life I have seen multiple examples of when s--t happens often without warning and without the people involved being able to counter it. The same happens on the international stage.

Did I miss one, sorry

Yep, As it goes against most wisdom, now currently being expressed by people around the world who are far more expert than either Me or you. There is also the matter of you requiring proof and/or explanations from everyone else.

Oh and a defence minister stating the obvious, Im shocked! Well actually I'd be more shocked if they didnt comment on the state if the NZDF tbh as it's not rocket science, the NZDF is floundering.

So did he say which we need, F-16 or F-35 out of interest?

 

[Rob c]

An Air Combat Force, could that be done for $10B?

As it would take at least a decade or more to get to full operational standard, the first decade of expenditure could, with the use of less than 5th generation aircraft and possibly second hand units, plus new trainers be kept under $3b, After the first decade, you would have additional expenditure, but top of the line first up is not required. For a combat aircraft, if new was required the TA-FA 50 would be more than adequate.

 

[Rob c]

Actually, that was your own comment re Ukraine, I just read it back to you...

I was aware of that, but again you used the wrong context, completely distorting things again.

ce to see a few edits there....was wondering if you'd pick up that was actually your own comment and quips I used.

Read the the above text and please stop the overuse of sarcasm, it undermines your credibility which is a pity as your postings on other subjects are at times quite good.

 

[RegR]

I was aware of that, but again you used the wrong context, completely distorting things again.

Read the the above text and please stop the overuse of sarcasm, it undermines your credibility which is a pity as your postings on other subjects are at times quite good.

Well no, as that was the point I was trying to make when I was asking for the whole who, what, where examples. So turns out you do think a war between 2 countries on the other side of the planet should then dictate what we do here. Don't worry everyone does it, the fact we have literally nothing in common with any of those countries just adds to it. If we shared a border with other volatile countries next door (as in can't get any closer) then yea sure our entire stance would be completely different, but we don't and it isn't.

My credibility?? I'm not the one who needs to prove anything, you are, this IS happening and you seem to keep forgetting that. It doesn't matter who you say said this and said that in a report or a commitee or even a page on the internet or what kind of credentials they have from some university, point is, it's not happening is it so as it stands, my credibility is just fine.

So yea, which fighter jet package did that defence minister suggest anyway, I'm actually interested?

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Read the the above text and please stop the overuse of sarcasm, it undermines your credibility which is a pity as your postings on other subjects are at times quite good.

You two need to agree to disagree... or get a room or something... sound like an old married couple... ;-)
I have now even lost what you are arguing... sorry "discussing..." Sorry

On that note...

Steller Systems unveil ‘Fearless’ Multi Role Support Ship concept | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

Does in have a side door for loading and unload at port?? and is limited with the number of containters 5 which is way less that Canterbury can take...
Also not sure the troop accommodation number... so many questions... that being said sleek looking and possibility of 30 knots... It is an interesting cconcept.

 

[Armchair]

As it would take at least a decade or more to get to full operational standard, the first decade of expenditure could, with the use of less than 5th generation aircraft and possibly second hand units, plus new trainers be kept under $3b, After the first decade, you would have additional expenditure, but top of the line first up is not required. For a combat aircraft, if new was required the TA-FA 50 would be more than adequate.

By your estimate it would take 10 years to introduce the capability (that sounds rapid but accept you are much better informed than I am). Let’s assume FA-50 will be ordered in 2025, with a (very short) service life of 20 years. What combat roles will FA-50 be more than adequate for in 2040 ( the mid point of its hypothetical RNZAF service life) in a modern Western military? I am sure there will be some but I imagine they will be very limited.

Gracie1234 mentioned MRTT but fighters are also more effective if they have airborne fighter controllers/ battle space management, and satellite surveillance and will (in all likelihood) be increasingly be accompanied by drones of various types. Is all of that enabling capability to be provided by the RNZAF or just the fighters? If the fighters are to be deployed off-shore will there be a sovereign NZDF ground-based capability to defend the bases from air attack? Are the ground crew and material support for the overseas fighter deployment to be delivered and returned by the RNZAF?

It is perfectly possible for NZ to acquire and operate all of these capabilities but in order for a sovereign ACF to be effective I think it would be more expensive than you have implied.

 

[Rob c]

You two need to agree to disagree... or get a room or something... sound like an old married couple... ;-)
I have now even lost what you are arguing... sorry "discussing..." Sorry

Agree,

 

[Rob c]

By your estimate it would take 10 years

No, I did say at least a decade, That would be a minimum to have an effective strikeforce, to get to the standard that we had in the 1980-90's from memory the RNZAF's estimate was 15 years. The standard achieved during that period was very high by international standards and was likely the same at other times. However a functioning unit with a reasonable capability could be achieved earlier.

 

[Rob c]

Gracie1234 mentioned MRTT but fighters are also more effective if they have airborne fighter controllers/ battle space management, and satellite surveillance and will (in all likelihood) be increasingly be accompanied by drones of various types. Is all of that enabling capability to be provided by the RNZAF or just the fighters? If the fighters are to be deployed off-shore will there be a sovereign NZDF ground-based capability to defend the bases from air attack? Are the ground crew and material support for the overseas fighter deployment to be delivered and returned by the RNZAF?

Drones have a significant part to play in modern warfare and are a good supplement to strike aircraft. As fore defence of overseas bases, this usually would be the host nations responsibility.
In my time with the strike squadron we had what was called the pack up, which was a set of trolly mounted cabinets and pallets with all the support gear, spares ETC we needed for up to 3 months deployment and that travelled with us on RNZAF C130's

It is perfectly possible for NZ to acquire and operate all of these capabilities but in order for a sovereign ACF to be effective I think it would be more expensive than you have implied.

My figures are for capital costs, assuming secondhand strike aircraft but possibly new training aircraft. Most training aircraft have been flogged to death by the time an air force replaces them. Combat aircraft used by major air forces are replaced due to them acquiring a high capability and usually have some life left. A recent deal for 24 ex Australian F18's was about $C100m give or take.
Operating cost would rise as more pilots and aircraft came on line, Probably starting at about $100m a year and rising from that annually to something between $150 to$200m at a guess.

 

[Gooey]

Hi RegR
You sound like an interesting guy to go fishing with and have a few beers, just so long as we don't mention the ACF and how the rest of the world's air combat rationals do not apply to good old Kiwi!
May I ask: what is your interpretation of sections of NZ Army going rogue and back-briefing Labour in the late 80s or early 90s to increase Army resources to support the UN at the expense of RNZN and RNZAF? I was elsewhere at the time but believe PM Clark afterward took the slasher to a goodly number of NZDF star ranks to remove any further opposition to her 'benign strategic environment' dictate.
Cheers
Gooey

 

[RegR]

Hi RegR
You sound like an interesting guy to go fishing with and have a few beers, just so long as we don't mention the ACF and how the rest of the world's air combat rationals do not apply to good old Kiwi!
May I ask: what is your interpretation of sections of NZ Army going rogue and back-briefing Labour in the late 80s or early 90s to increase Army resources to support the UN at the expense of RNZN and RNZAF? I was elsewhere at the time but believe PM Clark afterward took the slasher to a goodly number of NZDF star ranks to remove any further opposition to her 'benign strategic environment' dictate.
Cheers
Gooey

Rouge? Wow, a service fighting (literally) for its own survival, unheard of! What were there names? Star ranks would make the news for sure not like say army baggies in Bosnia for example trying to do their job with kit from Vietnam in an actual combat zone doing their and job. Now there's a bad joke about priorities. It's as if the "rogues" knew huh?

They didn't send skyhawks to that either right? Funny that.

Not sure what you are trying to point out, that our military was still obviously struggling way back then so STILL needed resourcing or that Clark wasn't a big fan of the military in general, both of which is not a secret here?

 

[Challenger]

Surely the debate should be whether the RNZN was to get some SSKs rather than reforming the ACF - if we are talking additional capabilities with expensive price tags and political suicide…

The Dutch Navy are building 4x Barracuda class for ~6b Euros, two being ‘delivered within 10years’. This would be a great option for us. Gives our government the ability to have a platform which can assist NZSIS/NZSAS operations, secure SLOC, land attack (if needed), ASW, and a true A2AD weapon for own part of the world for a much smaller headcount vs other alternatives.

Geopolitically with our ‘ownly’ ally, it would be perfect timing for their transition to SSN’s and they would probably love a cheaper platform for their ASW training on (I.e similar to 2squadron in Nowra) freeing up their boats to sit in the SCS.

Feels better bang for buck than fast jets. If my rough maths is correct would cost $10-15b for the 4x boats, which is ball park to the capex required to reform the ACF to a deployable standard - not counting some force multipliers such as tankers and AWACS to truly make it lethal and efficient.

For transparency - I’d argue both are capabilities are ones we should and could have if defence was a bigger issue in the voting public’s eyes. I also appreciate both are only viable once we get past 2.5% GDP and have sorted out what and (most importantly) WHO we have already in the NZDF.

 

[Rob c]

Not sure what you are trying to point out, that our military was still obviously struggling way back then so STILL needed resourcing or that Clark wasn't a big fan of the military in general, both of which is not a secret here?

Quite correct, for information the defence budget declined from 2.3% GDP in1990 to 1.62% GDP in 1999 in when the Jim Bolger was PM and further down to 1.15 under Helen Clark by 2008. I did hear that their was some fairly intense competition for the limited budget and that prior to the 1999 elections, she met with army senior staff were she promised support for the army. This was second hand info and should be viewed with caution.

New Zealand Military Spending/Defense Budget | Historical Chart & Data

Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are...

www.macrotrends.net

 

[Aluminium Hail]

There's still a ways to go before funding increases are a thing. Defence is apparently getting the same treatment as other ministries in next year's budget, 6.6% cut. Not a surprise, but hard to correlate with comments by defence and foreign ministers about upping our game.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...ing-amid-personnel-equipment-woes-2024-05-22/

Good to see Lucy Craymer still on the subject.

 

[recce.k1]

There's still a ways to go before funding increases are a thing. Defence is apparently getting the same treatment as other ministries in next year's budget, 6.6% cut. Not a surprise, but hard to correlate with comments by defence and foreign ministers about upping our game.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...ing-amid-personnel-equipment-woes-2024-05-22/

Good to see Lucy Craymer still on the subject.

Indeed but it's important to note the following quoted inside the article:

"The ministry said that it was not cutting existing spending, as the current defence budget was boosted by large capital expenditures on new aircraft, and that future capital investment decisions were "still under consideration".

Major capital expenditure during the 2017-2020 Govt's term lifted overall spending to about 1.5% of GDP. It was also (previously) reported that overall expenditure would reduce to about 1% of GDP (e.g. the usual operational expenditure levels of the last decade or so, without capital expenditure for major projects etc).

The "problem" with the 2020-2023 Govt was that they postponed a number of major capital expenditure projects that were signaled in the DCP19 to commence during that period (instead they continued to talk up their major investments from 2017-2020 eg P-8/C-130J/Bushmasters whenever questioned etc). According to DCP19 projects that were meant to get underway in the 2020-2023 time frame included the Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability (EMAC) project (indicative capital cost $300-600m), the Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel (indicative capital cost also $300-600m) and the Army Garrison and Training Support vehicles investment seemed to change into a piecemeal purchase approach over a number of years. So perhaps this also explains the further drop in expenditure to 0.9%? Granted the 2020-2023 Govt continued with various Frigate upgrades and the important elements of the Network Enabled Army programme ... so perhaps they weren't totally incompetent.

So all eyes on next month's DCP and its investment time frames ... which will give an indication of how this 2023-2026 Govt takes matters seriously.