As a kiwi i don't think the Army would abandon the light infantry doctrine without serious investment. And based on the results of the recent elections we probably aren't going to see that money until after 2030. More than likely the battalion motorised infantry Coys' will be equipped primarily with either Upgraded NZLAV or its replacement as well as Bushmasters and possibly Hawkei pending the outcome of the Protected Mobility Capability Project. Any leap in capability is likely to be dictated by or be heavily influenced by what we get to replace HMNZS Canterbury.
@@Strategy_AnalysisAs a Canadian I would like to know what you think about New Zealand’s requirement for a southern ocean patrol vessel, and whether the Canadian Arctic offshore patrol vessel would be suitable for this.
@@aawshaw Nz navy already operates vessels with capability to go to the ice. Depending how far south you want to go, the frigates (2), offshore patrol vessels (2), and new replenishment vessel Aotearoa are all capable. Nz has a big search and rescue area, from the tropics to Antartica, so they request designs for new ships that include ice capabilities.
For such a small country with a small military it has decent amphibious and refueler ships However its surface fleet is seriously lacking, 2 ANZAC class frigates with very little weapons and sensors New Zealand originally ordered 4 Meko 200 class frigates but changed their mind during production It’s a shame really because with the current navy having only 2 frigates means 1 will always be in port or training leaving only 1 warship to actually work RNZNs biggest issue is retention, be it the navy’s only base is in the most expensive city in NZ, poor pay and poor opportunities makes a career choice in the navy not desirable
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 I know a lot of former RAN surface/sub fleet, it seems we have the same problem when people would rather leave and work in mining.
As of 2023 NZ Army, debatably the NZDF, is rudderless. Its not just the dwindling workforce, or the aging equipment, it lacks the pressures from the "Barbarians at the door" to clarify its purpose and set a direction. It is sandwiched between the BAU of being a management school for a very large officer corp, vs a most likely use-case of HADR/Domestic Crisis management (which is not a requested government deliverable of the NZDF) within its operating environment of its EEZ , vs an empty aspirational goal in which NZDF historically strives to be "A world class combat capable military with mana" - able to be deployed on coalition combat operations in far and foreign lands, without defining what "combat" means. There is also a lack of clarity and guidance from the MFAT or DPMC in clarifying the appetite for risks in its overall NZ strategy on the world stage, which would give military planners a left and right of arc in terms of operating scenarios and equipment required for the NZDF to do its job. In essence, NZDF doesn't know if it wants to go up or down, left or right. In commercial strategy world, it is compromising its strategic positioning, and thus "dying in the middle ground" (refer to the 2023 - "12 future force design principles" as an illustration of compromise). This is why the new shiny equipment NZDF procures are similar to their coalition partner's, are often not fit for operating within the NZ context, even for training, and hence NZDF is still relying on its older equipment and infrastructure. In reference to the NZ Army, there is not a lot of foreseeable scenarios which NZ would likely deploy its MIBG. Given NZ primary military focus is Protection of its EEZ, the use of its MIBG is limited to the islands, most likely deployment scenario is in SASO (and HADR) type activity, and its equipment need to be reflective of this. For example, the reason that during the Cyclone Gabrielle that the decrepit Unimog trucks are still used for primary logistic mover on land and not its newer trucks, is primarily because the light loading on bridges and soft ground in rural NZ. This is also true with the type of environment on the islands within the EEZ. On the same logic, the modern 155mm SPG/Towed gun systems would be far too heavy to operate within the EEZ, and its logistics train requirements would also require heavy movers which would also not function well. This pretty much limits the choice in artillery types that the NZ Army can select from. There are many other examples which demostrates that many of NZ's newly procured equipment cannot operate within its EEZ. Coming from a coalition perspective, to be a credible combat force, NZDF's equipment has to be able to "plug and play" with its partners. Thus, what NZ's partners consider as a suitable contribution is more important than what NZDF deems to be, but in the end it will be up to the politicians and MFAT to decide what is something one can send without damaging the "NZ Inc". branding, while not having the public see body bags on the 6pm news. And as this analysis has suggested, ADF considers their MIBG to be far higher spec', and this means NZ army's MIBG is unable to "plug and play" and hence the NZDF would be losing its credibility with its partners. Unless the NZ politicians increase its risk appetite and open its war chest, the measly military insurance premium NZ government pays will only keep NZDF on life support, in a vegetative state. NZ Military planners will be relegated to maintaining the status quo; procuring, structuring and training with equipment and doctrine that is designed for conflicts of yesteryear. There is a way forward. All this requires an ontological shift in how NZ inc defines its national strategy and objectives, which then triggers NZDF's own shift in thinking. Like all organisations, picking a strategic position that is NOT the middle ground helps. NZ inc needs to do the same. In the case of NZDF, it operates within a small population and a political climate that is risk averse with low investment. NZDF needs to be small, agile and punching above its weight. It cannot be constrained by doctrine and structure which were designed to fight a conventional war in Europe or SEA in the 1980s, but should be structured for modern conflicts of information, sensing, intelligence, agility and adaptability. In short, mosaic warfare. In the worse case combat scenario, NZDF needs to consider how as a smaller opponent, can structure itself to maximise its impact and its strategic endgame. This will define how NZ infantry fights in according with the agile and adaptability principles of Mosaic warfare, and applying the same principles to determine how NZ fires-effects could possibly be delivered. Applying these principles along with the concepts explored above, would then help guide the use-case and selection of equipment. A few examples; Using the same VLS batteries and munitions for ship based and land based strike/AD, unifying network systems for naval gun fire support with land based artillery support, choosing to specialise in an SPG, mounted on SUPACATs which NZDF already maintains a fleet of. Having small naval helicopters which can be used for ISR in both SASO and HADR, but also able to provide close air support. Dual-purposing each of the equipment sets across the 3 services, streamlining supply chains, while minimising duplication of effort. By specialising, and doing things differently it forces coalition partners to take account of the unique capabilities and appropriately assign missions their forces are not equipped in achieving, and there are already examples of certain specialised capabilities that the coalition forces calls from the NZDF. An enabling action for future force design, is the fast adoption of new technology; working smarter, more agile and maximising human resource, while minimising the kill chain. The problem however is that, tech saavy operators are currently considered an enlisted rank and are not empowered or reimbursed the same as knowledge workers such as officers. As an example, across the world, many CEMA, RPAS, ROV operators gain the skills in the military, and leave to earn 3-4x the salaries in private sectors doing exactly the same thing. The only way militaries has been able to retain these skillsets is to enlarge its specialised units as reserve forces. NZDF would need to shift the power currently retained by a large officer corp, to its operational knowledge workers, and enable similar pay, training opportunities and progression traditionally available in their officer corp, similar to how private companies are run. Selection of such workers would need to change, as will kill chains and operating structures. It could be argued that the special operations forces already possess a similar culture, structure and layout, the question is how would this structure apply across services (Army, Navy, Airforce) or within their specialties, and whether that would affect NATO standardisations when working across with coalition partners. One thing is certain, if one focuses on the Toys rather than the context, one will always buy the same but shinier toy, rather than the tool that best fulfills the context in the future.
A very comprehensive, and thoughtful, post. Thank you. As I suggest in the briefing, NZ's leadership will need to understand what they have signed up for.
The nz leadership needs a push from Australian leadership and some procurement and maintenance help from Australian leadership nz politicians have become soft on what they think they need knowing that nz doesn’t need to defend itself when australia will do it for them issues go far beyond vehicles
NIce. Your next book needs to be about logistics. Is NZ able to survive on its own farming and agriculture and ranching? I think there is at least a 5% chance of a total global economic depression within 3 years. And it will be the worst in history. It wasn't that long ago--- 1960--- China had a famine that killed millions of its citizens. There are people who claim that we could double the world population with no problem. And that is true, *IF* nothing goes wrong and the supply chain runs perfectly. However, we are going to experience changing weather patterns, like drought.And China seems to get the worst of everything, like this past year. They had crazy heat and drought, and a few months later, in the same massive flooding. They import SO much food. If and when the supply chains get broken... chaos. You can't feed over a billion people with soup kitchens. And it will hasten the global depression. Another thing...wow... I just realized NZ and Australia don't have a huge problem with immigrants.... No need to build a wall, NZ holds the world record for the largest moat.
Yr wrong reference rural bridges and the Unimog. Stock trucks regularly use them weighing 44tonne, including trailer… some ‘ mogs were maintained as the new MAN doesn’t have the water fording ability the Unimog does…
Interesting. I recall back in the 90’s 1 RNZIR had a mechanized company (W) that informally specialised in working with QAMR (cavalry) M113’S. Coy deployed to Bosnia in 94. I no longer serve but years ago in 2013 I took part in a gap analysis as part of an ABCA multinational division HQ in Kandahar. Back then, and at the Division level, interoperability with the US Military’s communication systems / networks was a challenge from memory.
Boxer would be an ideal platform for NZ. Purchase and operational costs should decrease quickly now that production is happening within Australia and Germany itself ordering ~100 Boxers from Australia.
The L119 light gun is indeed not ideal for near peer conventional combat in the desert or plains of Europe. How ever it is still the best weapon system in the world to support dismounted infantry in disruptive and complex terrain like the jungles of South East Asia, the mountains central Asia and the islands of the South west pacific, the most likely places the NZDF will have to fight, further it is integrative with US artillery who still maintain this capability for this reason. If the NZDF is required to use the ADF M777 then the conversion is simple and easy being about a week long.
Very good point re the current towed 105mm gun. If manpower is the central theme of this supposed 'Composite Division' containing Kiwis, Ozzies, Americans, etc., then how about NZ providing the soldiers and Australia providing its vehicles for these Kiwi soldiers to operate and fight with? Can't get more interoperability than that if the Ozzies supplied their own equipment for Kiwi soldiers to use in such a division. Furthermore, such a proposed arrangement would get this 'Composite Division' training and operating in very short order in this still very dangerous world we all live in.
@@sandorbiczo8094 That's about the most sensible thing I've heard about NZ integration. The NZDF is so poor and gutted over the last 40 years it's really sad. Otherwise NZ should probably invest in a lightweight airborne/transportable Army and maybe bluewater capable patrol vessels. Quite hard to make a credible force with a population of only 5 million. It would even make sense to have Aussie bases in NZ with infrastructure to support shared costs. It would go down better that say a US base for instance. Hopefully there will be some force multiplier technology in drones if China ever manages to take Taiwan. It seems insane to me that NZ has no real native Airforce power when the Island set makes for an ideal location to launch an air campaign in self defence and probably cheaper than fleshing out a Navy we can't afford, to cover so much ocean. It's more of a civil defence force than a credible military these days. If Japan had made it to NZ during WW2 maybe there would be some cultural awareness about our own security but think the general attitude is we're so small and far away, what can we do about it if it occurs as it's also very unlikely. I mean they'd have to get past our big Cousin Aussie and UK and US, a possie with the biggest kid on the block. New Zealand produces 25 times more food than it consumes which China might want. If Zelandia gets ratified into NZ fishing grounds it would be massive. I can't help but feel like bait sometimes for China reunification plan 2050 to contest the entire Pacific Island chain capable of blocking all shipping according to Peter Zeihan.
....I personally think NZ's strategy of having (...basically) a light infantry-based army is a sound one....and not because it is the cheapest option. Firstly, I must confess I am not an infantry expert, I just spent a few years in WAI/WEC and QAMR (....M113s/Recce Landrovers, respectively). My view is that light infanty still have a role to play on the modern battlefield. There are still built up areas, Pacific Islands (...potentially) and 'jungles' to be fought through....and others have made this comment already in this forum. Once again, I'm not a Navy expert either but the world is on the cusp of fielding AI driven military platforms, and NZ could quite conceivably be at the forefront of introducing things like a patrol drone that could stay aloft for a couple of months at a time to keep an closer eye over our EEZ (....exclusive economic zone). If Albatross birds can stay aloft at sea for most of their lives I can't see why a specifically designed and AI controlled surveillance drone couldn't do the same thing. There will always be a place for 'boots on the ground, or in a Navy context, a manned combat surface vessel, but it's all about leveraging NZs limited personnel pool in the best possible way (...and managing our limited economic resources in the best possible way).
I disagree I think 120mm for direct infantry support or 155mm for higher level heavy gun. I dont think there is a real spot for 105mm towed guns in modern warfare, any firesupport has to be self propelled or man portable
@@knowahnosenothing4862 Japan did make it to NZ, they flew a plane from a submarine over Auckland. The Germans were also active mining shipping lanes around NZ.
Next gen army helmets require a gimballed feature which allows a soldier to always see directly above them, in a wide range of helmet orientations. This feature needs to work in infra-red at night, and so the night vision system should be a part of the vertical periscope. It would be handy if the system monitored the projected image, and raised a warning upon detecting drone-like movement, in case the soldier's attention is focused elsewhere. This is needed because both attack and spotter drones are now so quiet, the ground troops can't hear them. And they don't see the munitions dropped from the drones, and they don't see the artillery shells which follow the spotter drones by just 90- seconds or so.
I have always thought maybe NZ should try and concentrate on a more amphibious force, they have canterbury as the main ship, buy some ACV (USMC amphibious combat vehicles) or some of the other amphibions in the patria family. Also AUS is looking at LARC replacements. Make a unit close in both concept and equipment to the australian PLF (pre landing forces). They probably need top pick up some smaller landing ships. But theres quite a few options what ever aus picks as MLMV (medium litoral maneuver vessel) maybe they could get a good deal on the 2 independence because they have RORO capability. Could also look at STRB-80s for patrol or section landing
you bring out the main point. with the main issue being budget. NZ military have been more than aware of budget limits and has always had the view that they can not be self contained (this idea only get more expensive with time) but will arm and equip themselves for subordinate roles in larger allied armies - Aus, UK and US. its always been that way.
Sounds like a lot of upgrades required and not a lot of money to go around. Probably the best way to stretch that money is to get 155mm SPG's and perform an update of the NZLAV. But honestly, an update on the NZLAV probably isn't going to provide the capabilities required. It's too low for survivability for near peer and starting to be questionable for anti-insurgent roles. Plus, any armour upgrade loses the amphibious capabilities. Honestly LAV's are at the stage where they're peacekeeping, reserve, low intensity or specific use only. Amphibious capability could at times be extremely useful but the tradeoff in capability has seen that fall from favor, but for a support role in underdeveloped infrastructure areas or even in aid for flooded regions it could be important.
The NZDF would need some serious funding in order to be ready for a deployment on the scale we are talking here. The reserve units don't even train with the gear they would use on deployment as there is a shortage of said equipment. It's highly unlikely the new government is going to invest in systems such as boxer when the purchase of the bushmasters has already stretched the budget. Not to mention that the DF often has to ask the Australians to airlift its equipment for it, as the RNZAF fleet of air transporters is often breaking down. Also considering NZ politicians are very cautious about staying friendly with China, greatly out of step with our traditional allies. The new Prime Minister is very keen to join President Xi's belt and road initiative to get loans for New Zealand's very low quality public road infrastructure which needs investment.
I would love to see evidence that national is interested in belt and road initiative.... that's basically a debt trap to facilitate Pla territory access in nation's that sign on.
@@dna6882 Luxon has expressed his interest in it recently on breakfast TV. He clearly wants to stay chummy with China, who is obviously our largest trading partner. He said something about the huge amount of capital that the initiative would allow us to access.
@@dna6882 I tried to link a 1news piece about it but youtube doesn't like it. If you google "Luxon belt and road" it should be the first one that comes up. He's very open to the idea
New Zealand forces could rotate Coy by Coy to Australia for integrated training using our equipment. That would also allow the different officers to get to know each other. German armoured personnel used to go to Camp Shilo in Canada for field exercises for example.
There is really no point in us Kiwis having a fighting arm, we are just too small to be able to be of any real use. We would be better to concentrate on support roles / emerging technology.
@@oggaBugga Sounds great - support roles and emerging technology. But it is not really going to happen is it? Certainly not at a level to make a difference. NZ has a population and wealth similar to the Australian state of Victoria and is very capable of making a solid contribution to a collective defense of small nations that rely on open sealanes and to deter predation by larger countries . It is just that NZ governments over the past 30 years have abrogated these responsibilities to Australia and the US. NZ defense spending have averaged just 1.2% of GDP for the past decade - which is way too little. Anyhow the prospect of fighting CCP proxies in South West Pacific has increased - not sure if NZ policy elite or the public have woken up to the threat as yet.
New Zealand is always going to be at a disadvantage in manpower so we should look to lift the quality of our infantry to as high a standard as possible. I always thought our army should have a course our personnel can go through to get Ranger qualified based on the US 75 Ranger Regiment standards. Have the RASP 1 and 2 courses which people will go through based on their rank if they get through the course they will come out airborne qualified and capable of supporting NZSAS or any other special operations force when they're on operations. I wouldn't have a stand-alone ranger company because it will take too many good people from the infantry battalions. Personnel could qualify from the course then go back to their infantry battalions which will be a great asset to the battalions and they would have to pass periodic fitness tests and parachuting to keep their Ranger TAB. It would effectively create a tier 2 level of soldiers in the NZDF which would bring so many benefits without creating additional demands on manpower. 1.Enhance our infantry battalions all NCO should be encouraged to go through the course. 2. We would have soldiers in the infantry battalions that are special operations capable that could deploy with NZSAS to support them on operations and develop as soldiers at the same time. 3. It would be a great way to help prepare soldiers who have aspirations to be in the NZSAS they will be able to enter the NZSAS selection course better prepared which could potentially get more people through the NZSAS pipeline without lowering standards.
Thank you for this presentation. The New Zealand Army has attempted a number of times to move away from its doctrine of a Light Infantry construct. Key areas where attempts have been made: - 1996 - 98 'Fire Team Concept. This was a reorganisation of the Light Infantry Section into Alpha and Bravo Teams with a Reconnaissance modus operandi. For the Infantry Platoon, the sub units was expanded to a fourth section that acted as the defacto heavy weapons section for the platoon. The concept was to decentralised the Infantry Company into 'Dispersed Operations' with an emphasis on flexibility, the 'Freedom of Action' in Manoeuvre Warfare' and required the a higher level of leadership, command at the junior level and this also required the junior leader to be strategically aware and comprehensively understand the 'three up' in the command structure. The constraints for the new concepts of the time was, the increase of equipment for the unit and subunit. Weight burdened mobility. The other constraints was communications, command and control for co ordination. The NZ Army at the time relied heavily on an analogue, Vietnam era communications system. The former army reader would recognise this as the M77 radio. This radio (as mentioned) highly aged and degraded by time, making communications as unreliable. Concurrently, at the time, global operations were ramping up to an unpredictable and 'fluid' environment that required a higher degree of flexibility and an emphasis on the junior commander. This coincided with the 'Three Block Model' approach published by USMC General Kulak along with the US Army's Future Combat Systems, championed by Eric Shinseki (CRS Report 2009) with the main premise: 'To outsmart and out manoeuvre'. This provides the NZ Army to move away from Cold War era Corps / Regimental organisations that had a tendency to be insular. This is a transformation from the heavy Cold War armoured Force Concept. For New Zealand, provided an opportunity to move away from institutional Cold War thinking of ridged Corps / Regimental system that at times had a tendency to be insular and transition to highly mobile, a flexible, digitalised real time communications (audio, visual) and a quick thinking, quick to act independent organisation benefited NZ greatly as a small state. This concept evolved into the NZ Motorised Battalion Concept. In 2004-06, NZ purchased initially 105 Canadian General Dynamics LAV 3 wagons with the development of the NZ Infantry Motorised Concept that is very similar to the US Army's Stryker Concept that would potentially lead to the further purchase of Medical, Engineer, Command and Control, even a possible Fire Support LAV. This lead further to communications and co ordination with the potential to purchase the Blue Force Tracking, allowing for the first time an digitised system for commanders to communicate and co ordinate in real time. Sadly, this was not purchased, but the foundations were prepared for future possible procurement. Reconnaissance would need to be expanded and mounted in light high mobility vehicles with enhanced surveillance and electronic warfare systems. This even included the early designs of drones. The LAV concept supported dismounted Infantry and provided a high, sustainable tempo of mobility. To support the deployment, the Navy developed an amphibious doctrine to support army operations. This is reflected in the purchase of the HMNZS Canterbury from the Netherlands. The phrase at the time to conceptually explain was: 'From the Teeth to the Tail'. Meaning an independent Task Group that was self sustaining from a logistical standpoint. So what happened??? The Infantry Fire Team Concept, along with the Motorised Infantry Battalion Concept = Challenged the Status Quo. As mentioned, the NZ Army organisation and culture revolves around 2 key themes: (i) The Regimental System (ii) Stalwarts, hardliners known as: 'The Singapore Generation' (A term referring to the NZ base in Singapore and those posted there) pushed back and attempted to disrupt the transformation.c 'They' originate from the boomer - Senior Gen X elk that have progressed from the post NZ Vietnam era that has had a strong influence in personality and institutional thinking that has echos in the NZ Army today. In the words of an Austrian anthropologist: 'Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast'. From a sense, this means in terms of stakeholders within the army, there would be a 'Winner, Loser Model'. In essence, this challenged the stalwarts within the armoured corps and the infantry and the cliche influence. Even with the Establishment of the School of Combat, each wing maintains the historical practice and functions separately. Individual champions within the NZ Army, innovate, not the organisation. There is a tendency for innovations to run out of momentum and all too often overwhelmed by barriers, bureaucracy and traditionalist / stalwarts (as previously mentioned) reverts back to historical patterns constraining its ability to study, analyse and implement incremental change in doctrine and other forms of practice. Hence, the NZ Army's current predicament that now effects attrition.
The PLA havnt moved much from their overwhelming the enemy in numbers doctrine, so with this in mind the L119 would provide New Zealand with a short range arty system. I feel that as a bigger force, if we invent in a Air to Ground capability, or even try get the skyhawks back, they might be out dated but they(with some modern munitions) can provide a close surrport capability, which allows New Zealand to keep the L119s and expand the capability of the RNZAF. As you stated the PLA is the most likely threat in New Zealand, however we are mostly on peacekeeping operations and talking to a few people we(in a major conflict) would see only a base security force, (to the protest of many solders) or if anything a low threat patrol while the Americans would do the more threating patrols. Talking to a few people they see Austrilia as a direct action force and should we work with them, the Aussie unit would be an attacking force while New Zealand is more of a defensive force. However New Zealand has an infantry offensive capability that isn't seen in the public eye. Although this is limited to light warfare with infantry and lightly armored vehicles and nothing else. However I do enjoy your analysis and have earnt a sub from that!
Thanks for the comment and sub. From what's been publicly released so far re Plan ANZAC, the NZ BN Group will be part of the AUS Motorised BDE, which AFAIK will not be designed to go up against peer/near-peer force. This would broadly be consistent with your comments.
A 4 Skyhawks Jeez We could've had F 16 C /D for 75 Sqn which would of been ideal But the Govt at the time turned down a bargin from the US I mean even the F 16 are an obsolete platform compared to other Attack aircraft But they still would of been better then what we have now..... An with a comprehensive modernization an avionics upgrade The F 16 block 4 I believe it is called now? Is still rolling off the production lines an equipping Airforces with strike capabilities.
One solution is for the nation with the smaller pockets to supply the manpower and the nation with the larger pockets to supply the mobility. NZ would have to pay for the upkeep in service, but purchase and later sell-off would be Australia's responsibility. A small number would reside in NZ for training, most would remain in Australia waiting to mate up with their operators on exercise or deployment.
Thanks, great analysis, as always! It would be easy to get all romantic about the Spirit of ANZAC; and yet, I do believe that is one of the greatest assets for both countries. As an integrated force, we will be stronger and more effective than the sum of our parts. NZ can also help guide Australia in humanitarian assistance and disaster response missions in Polynesia; my sense is that NZ, with its sizable Pasifika population, has a better awareness and understanding of those countries than does Australia (hopefully we will catch up, soon).
As a Kiwi who has lived in Australia for over 20 years and was formerly a member of the New Zealand Army, I agree wholeheartedly. Not that NZ's record in the South Pacific is perfect. But NZ would help smooth out the rough edges of Australian foreign policy, while Australia is less naive concerning some of our trading partners to the north. And both should make greater efforts in the South Pacific region to aid and partner with our neighbours. Someone else is.
try getting either major party to sign off the funding for these changes. we only replaced to orions and hercs because the airforce told them they were about to fall out the sky, and even then the opposition called it a waste of money. and 20 years ago the us was gonna give us f16s basically for free and the government of the time said no its too expensive
Both frigates have undergone recent upgrades, we have a (relatively) new fuel ship, and we also replaced the Hueys with NH90s. The Seasprites' replacement is in the cards in the not too distant future also (my guess is a Blackhawk variant, but we'll see).
@@mr2981 are the black hawks too big for our ships? I like the idea but I seem to remember reading they're not an option due to size. I thought the sea sprites were quite a bit smaller but haven't looked into this for many years...
@@luciddaze248 That is an excellent question, and I should mention that it is the SH-60 variant that is one of the probable contenders. Because ot its size it can operate from some but not all NZ ships. I don't think I can post links here but if you google for an article on defsec about maritime helicopters from a while back that looked at all the criteria.
Interesting post, thank you. I'm pretty old and looked at joining the forces after leaving school which was just as the cold war was winding down. I was in army cadets for a few years and got to see how expansive our forces were in those days...1988-1991. Fastforward to modern day...and decade upon decade of governments Blue or Red or Greenish have all underfunded and incoherently organised our military to the point of indignity. Maybe the worst thing in my humble opinion is the terrible performance in regards to hardware purchases - HMNZ Charles Upham, the Lavs that couldn't be transported anywhere by air, the navy patrol boats that never go to sea and ancient C130s all badly damaged the reputation and capacity of the armed forces in our Country. The recent C130 and Posideon purchases look great on paper, but whats backing them up? Our economy can't sustain more than a month or two of war materiale if a real conflict lands on our shores. Than goodness for defence treaties!
We need to focus on tech.....missiles, drones, space.....god knows how but clock may be ticking. Big ticket...targets....like frigates are a waste. Would love to see us have ournown naval surveilance li g range drones....capable of carrying one or two missiles of need be.
I highly doubt that any potential adversary is ever going to land anything on our shores, one good reason: they would firs have to destroy the entire conventional American navy to do so. Can you imagine trying to supply materiel support from China to New Zealand? i don't think anyone actually realises just HOW far away we are from.... everything. So while your complaints aren't unfounded i don't think they are said in good faith. We don't need to defend ourselves, distance largely does that for us. If you think about our military more Siloed it makes more sense. The Air force has c130J and Poseiden for its two primary missions, disaster relief and maritime patrol. The Navy mainly does the same, and has ships designed and fielded accordingly. There is almost no connection between the LAV being air-lifted and the C-130, because its not like New Zealand has a corollary to the 101st airborne. The army sits in a strange space, as without the focus on non-combat missions that the Navy and Air Force primarily undertake they are a bit of a lame duck. They are primarily defensive, that is obvious, but they have to fight in a conventional manner, but that job is primarily in SUPPORT of our allies, for international relations reasons, not because there is any fear of PLA boots on the Hibiscus Coast. With that in mind funding decisions are a lot more flighty, as they are seen by the political stripes of all sides as simply one of many ways to curry international favour. We aren't the USA, we aren't providing international deterrence against malignant states across the world. All that said, i don't think you are necessarily wrong, but we aren't in a unique space, the peace dividend has hit everyone hard for the last 30 years. Think of how Germany, fucking Germany, is struggling with its own procurement processes, and they are in a geographical location where their geopolitical rivals CAN obliterate them into the stone age. So lets not pretend like we are uniquely useless, we just decided it was better to give all the wealthy dudes fat tax breaks rather than investing in things that can actually make us safe. But you could write that same sentence about any Western economy and not be far from the truth.
It makes sense that we have an integrated ANZAC approach as much as possible! Our Airforce and Navy should integrate as much as possible as well. Our new Poseidon and Hercules are a step forward. And maybe we should re establish an interceptor capacity by having say 15% of the Aussie fighters permanently based in Queensland with the odd training sortie over the Southern Alps and Mount Tongrairo just like the old days!
Why should Australia waste its scarce resources defending nz? NZ is not part of Australia and Australia can't defend itself. The much loathed and incompetent Labor govt are destroying Australia's defence forces.
no offence why is everyone assuming that australia should be paying the bills for the defence of NZ. Deploying '15%' of our fighters to NZ is going to cost money is NZ going to cover it. NZ has option to federalize with Australia as a state. If they want AUS to defend then they have that option
@richardthomson4693 the option was given to nz at Australia's federation. They didn't want it then or now and quite frankly, as an Australian, I don't want them as part of Australia. Let them pay for their own defence. Once they were a proud country but since that adhern creature they are an undefended mess. Apartheid albo just hasn't got australia to that stage yet.
@@paddlesmcbean2366 I agree we should pay our own way, but to what end? What are we defending ourselves from, we have no enemies. The only enemy we would have would be China, *IF* we followed Australia and became a US puppet.......But what is the point in creating an enemy from our largest trading partner, just to bend over and take it from the americans? *PS, no one here likes ardern, hence her quitting before the elections.
We need to immediately form a drone unit and indigenous design and production across all forms of drones including some form anti submarine drones....in addition, we should contract Rocketlab to launch our own mini version of skylink and a few geostationary survelillanc satellites and underwater sub detectors placed throughout our waters. I would also look at the latest Patriots....we may need them. I would send a few observers to Ukraine to look and learn
If New Zealand is looking to upgrade our artillery forces we should buy buy some tracked MLRS like the M270. The Americans have developed a extended range 227mm rocket that goes 150Km. They also have the precision strike missile which is replacing ATACMS. It can go 310 miles with plans to double that and have an anti ship capability. It would give us the artillery capability to compete on any battlefield and being tracked could be used on any terrain. The 105mm artillery could be kept to supplement the MLRS. The guns are very mobile and will be great for the Pacific theatre. I read about the 105mm being used in Ukraine and they really like them they're accurate, easy to move, and easy to conceal.
The ture issue for NZDF is: Who is the enemy? New Zealand's military has not been involved in any major wars for decades.（I'm talking about deploying overseas in units of at least a brigade.) I think NZDF's mission in the future should focus on protecting those oversea Kiwis and make sure they back to home alive when other countries fall into chaos or provide humanitarian aid. Therefore, the Russian Battalion tactical group is a good choice for the New Zealand Army. Although this small unit with enhanced firepower cannot handle a large-scale war, the BTG proved its value in small-scale conflicts during the Donbas war and the intervention of Syria. And I disagree with the idea of purchasing Boxer to replace the LAV III, it's too heavy for the RNZAF C-130J's cargo bay. The APC version of boxer without the turret weighs 36 tons! In comparison, Rosomak seems like a better choice. With a combat weight of 22 tons, Rosomak integrated a two-man turret carrying a 30mm Bushmaster automatic gun. This means that the RNZAF could use the C-130J to transport KTO Rosomak by reducing the fuel and ammunition inside the vehicle.
But according to feedback from my friends in the Army, NZ Army does not have any combat capabilities and faces serious manpower shortages. Therefore a well developed navy may be more useful than a mini army.
Boxer could cover all! Scout /recon, apc , air defence ( oerlikon like!) nemo mortar system ,155 mounted, ambo,engineers; recovery etc etc! Backed up with Bushmasters, Hawkei and uparmored HDX trucks! All Aussie made ,of course! All wheeled ,fast, safe and deadly!
New Zealand has bright people and Ukraine has shown that the next war involves drones, AI, electronic warfare etc. this actually plays well to New Zealand creativity and industriousness, and is less manpower dependent which new Zealand will always be deficient in.
Yeah, those are very broad fields though. We can't even have decent roads, so highly unlikely we are going to be competitive in next generation war fighting, especially when you consider how slow the Brigadiers in Wellington are at adapting to change. We are for all intents and purposes a US colony, they themselves are in many cases decades behind the Russians and even the Chinese in regards to advanced military technology. The best thing we could do, is become the Switzerland of the Southern Hemisphere ( or what Switzerland used to be ). Declare neutrality and concentrate on services we can offer the world.
@@oggaBugga The US have excellent cruise missiles with Stealth built into them like JASSAM the Russians and Chinese don't have them. The Patriot system has been kicking ass in Ukraine and so has the NASAM system. What does Russia and China have that compares to the SM3 Missile and the THADD missile's for air defence. The US is pouring money into electronic warfare after neglecting it for a long time and no way are they decades behind with the military industrial complex they have it won't take long for them to field new systems.
Dont hold your breath for anything that requires money, you will either have a government like now which is short sighted and saving money focused or a government like before that is scared to commit to anything that might be seen as aggressive or anti China. Its a lose lose in my opinion
What do you think of the RCH 155 on the Boxer chassis as this would give commonality with the APC and IFV. For NZ. And on a bit of a tangent, what about ordering more of the APC & IFV boxers as well as the RCH for the Australian army now that the labour government has cut the numbers of Redbacks and K9's? As I believe, they would be substantially better than what we are going to be left with. (ex 2/14 trooper)🇦🇺
There should be much greater coordination with not just Australia, but also the UK and Canada. CANZUK should not only be interoperable at every level, but interchangeable. ie it should not matter which country is deploying forces, they can work together effectively.
Would AS-9/K-9 not also be a good option for self propelled gun? The Koreans are happy to sell, and the ADF is buying them, I think they also take less crew than something like Cesar. It seems like Boxer CRV could cover the IFV role, if NZ found itself needing that job covered. It might say recon on the tin, but it's well armoured, and has good enough firepower for that job.
although i would personally love to see such modernizations, our governments, regardless of parties are known to be a bit stingy when it comes to defence budgets
prob not as the army uses the public roads to get to training grounds. they wouldn't want to invest in heavy vehicles required to transport them to and from bases just to train
@@thepolishnz That is a partial consideration and a decent point, however the K9 can use full rubber tracks, which also reduces the weight, and even if the don't use full rubber track pretty much everyone has moved away from aggressive track.
@@thepolishnzunless they based their heavy equipment in Australia. us army is starting to do that. Singapore has dont that for years. Essentially they fly over here for regular exercises and go home when it is finished. Massive training ranges as well.
China doesn't need to invade militarily. All it has to do is push Chinese immigration and over time those biological ties will bear fruit. It's not like there is a competing national culture in NZ. China is already doing the soft 'invasion' around the world. Arkansas recently demanded a Chinese company sell off farmland that it was using to produce fodder for export which was using excessive water in a dry area.
@TuproMcBro-hj4fhwhilst fair, NZ is at the end of Chinas reach, like in WW2. They just need to be decent, to chip away and hold ground. Its like thr RAAF doesn't hold a candle to the US airforce, but having nurmerous airfields and naval bases arouns the world for America to use, and they sort out their own defences for the most part. Thats all NZ needs to do. Even if China had an army of a billion people, it can only ferry over so many people into NZ at a time. The ocean creates a bottleneck.
I love the term "conventional invasion". It makes me think of what does an "unconventional invasion" looks like? Economical, cyber, and migration could be other possible vectors of not necessarily invasion but strong influence applied to NZ.
I honestly think every American ally or partner should adopt the American Brigade Combat Team format. Whether armored, wheeled mechanized or infantry. It is far superior to the Russian Battalion Tactical Group setup and makes your military easily interchangeable with an American that you may be merged with.
I agree as well, but besides some notable exceptions most militaries are moving to the brigade centric model. This is because of the aforementioned reasons you stated as well as others.
@@267BISMARK are you high? Russia isn't even close to parity with the US in terms of conventional arms. It isn't even in the same ballpark! Not small arms. Not tanks. Not ships. Not planes. Nothing. If Russia and the US finds itself in a conventional conflict, the US would dismantle it in a matter of days. Hell, Russia can't even defeat its neighbour.
The New Zealand's Defence Force has been long overdue a serious investment to significantly increase its martial capabilities since being effectively declawed by the Helen Clark government.
Boxers to replace our Lavs would be nice there’s even a 155mm arty module for it that Ukraine has ordered. Would love for us to get a new Sam system the Skygaurd system would be good for us as uses same camm missile our frigates use. Would be nice but with how much Covid cost probably just dreaming 😢
The Pacific opponent is well equipped, but poorly trained and led with little combat experience. Such a war would require all types of forces. What would be bad for NZ is to develop a force too heavy for its (and AUS's) air/sealift capabilities.
Need all 3 to work in cohesion Air Land Sea No point having Navy or Airforce without Army to secure grounds an maintain the land with which Airforce an Navy bases both operate from
Unfortunately, NZ has been underinvesting in its defence forces for decades and to some extent 'free-loading' off Australia and the US. In its current form, it does not have interoperability with the ADF, nor US or UK. Time for the Kiwis to start pulling their weight. When you look at the navy and airforce, it gets even worse.
The current NZ Minister of Defence is tainted so most would doubt much can be achieved.The first objective for the Army Section of the NZDF is recruitment, training and retention. The Covid babysitting sessions of people in hotels caused some to disengage from their military service. There is a discussion about having an NZDF 'marine' section, probably initially from the army as a more watery environment unit to work alongside the navy. Generally nearing the top of the NZDF shopping list is to replace the jet transport 757s. As the 757s are multi-used for politician transport etc, it has been suggested the NZ airforce get a 737 business jet for the brass/ politicians(with media & entourage) and separate transport jets (Airbus freight spec with heavy duty landing gear?) Even if the NZDF did get M777 155mm, it would also require Chinook or Merlin? helicopters to carry them in one piece. Be interesting to see if a M777 can be disassembled and field reassembled for a NZDF NH-90s to carry artillery in parts, to an isolated firebase etc. Bring in 105mm initially to suppress the area then larger and longer arty. The younger NZ politicians in the post-corporal punishment era (I have read some Aussie schools still have corporal punishment) mostly never had to contemplate the deterrent effect of straps on teachers' desks or knowing teachers kept canes in staffroom cupboards and used both educational tools on students, to have a good understanding of the 'deterrent effect'.
New Zealand won't be able to upgrade very many units they should buy refurbished LAV-300 and buy new wheeled 155mm SPG, NSAMS, SHORADS, MANPADS, and anti-drone systems.
Australia put lots of orders on but way Australian economy production of nothing is going soon Australia won't have finance to percuse any of these systems @@badgerattoadhall
I agree with all your updates to our kit like the boxer and self propelled 155 mm guns. We should donate our 105mm guns and LAV 3s to Ukraine. We are no good to anyone if we don't have the weaponry and the skills to effectively use them. We should develop our own drones too. We already have that expertise.
155mm wheeled SPGs won't be too useful if you're island hopping across the Pacific. Have you ever wondered why the US put the latest variant of the 105 into service only a decade ago? And took them to both Iraq and Afghanistan?
This armored brigade would be good also the NZDF should invest into a Air Cavalry which includes 15 attack helicopters and a 10 medium unity helicopters (NH90s) They could support the armored infantry and light infantry and bring in and bring out wounded, support etc.. Also the NZDF could buy some second hand little birds which could be used by NZSAS. Anyway I'm pleased the DF is slowly growing back to it's former glory.
The A 109 the RNZAF operates are good for SAS/ STG CTG ops So long as they had the VIP seats removed an Self preservation added... Rocket pods Door Guns M 60 or Mg 42? Or better still M 134 mini gun The group or 1NZSAS should at least have gunship support helo for task an purpose An it should be allocated to their det as part of their integrated assets that are essential for their missions Maybe a slight overkill if anything But Never know it could be needed for Counter Terrorism
New Zealand should be spending 4% on military budget. Just like Australia, Canada and the UK. relying on the Americans is looking less and less like a foolproof plan. 2% Navy 1% Airforce 1% Army.
What direction do you think the South African National Defence force should go? Given funding limitations, regional commitments, and desires of the 2015 defence review?
Great report! So NZ is going to provide a motorised battalion group to an Australian yet to be announced motorised brigade? Does this mean the this motorised brigade is going to be a less than full strength brigade? Is this why 5 & 7 RAR are being re- amalgamated again? And could NZ really justify dumping their LAV 6’s and Bushmasters to join Australia in re-equipping with Boxers to fight a near peer opponent like the PLA, when that is not likely to happen without destroying the Australian economy? Remember the only thing bolstering Australia’s coffers is exporting iron ore to China With the US looking very unstable after 2024 & the rest of the democratic world looking very shaky, would Australia & NZ really take on the PLA? I’m not trying to be a smart arse, just putting a different perspective on things. An alternative is NZ keeps their LAV’s & Bushmasters (& 105’s) and cross trains on our gear & if in the unlikely scenario that we get into a fight with China, then we could provide them the gear. And if ever we need a light portable battalion that can operate in rugged mountain terrain, the we could borrow their 105’s etc 😉 Cheers
@@philm6722 good point & we in Australia will be more likely be fighting in an island campaign rather than some big mainland peer to peer battle in some coalition. I think the Kiwi tax payers would start getting really annoyed if the army started buying the heavier equipment mentioned in the video. One day soon Australian tax payers will start getting really pissed off if working people keep living in tents, going without services and struggling to feed themselves or their families, whilst the government (of whichever party) keeps spending money on “war stuff” without really thinking about it first! It’s nice to have all the toys but no good if you can’t man them or use them due to budget restraints. Cheers
Look at what the Aussies have in regards to defence housing. Citizens can buy brand new houses, and the defence force enters a contract with the owners to say a 10 year lease. All maintenance and expenses is covered by the defence force, and the owners get the money from the rental payments from ADF staff. NZDF could do the same thing, and you'd have extra housing stock freed up for the public or the NZDF after the 10 year lease is finished.
The first duty of a government is to protect its citizens. The management of our military by successive governments has clearly been a disaster, the scale of which which will only be apparent when we suddenly find that we really need a military capability but don't have one to speak of. Looking at the way the world is heading in recent times with hot wars, climate change and threats of more conflicts between major players, Helen Clark's past lala land legacy peacekeeping approach certainly seems very high risk and neglectful of the lessons of history !!! Our airforce and navy couldn't stop much more than a few fishing boats and the 100+ LAVs bought for low intensity peace keeping and domestic populace control have long been viewed as largely a waste of money. If we then want to depend on alliances, what really do we contribute to make it worthwhile for our likely allies to feel they need to help us???
I joined the NZDF Army in 1992 and got out in 2000 rejoined 06-08 and it’s turned to utter 💩 can’t yell at soldiers because you might hurt their feelings 😂 a critical shortage of manpower and zero direction which is the fault of the Top Brass nobody on courses is allowed to be failed and I have personally seen this at the school of Combat our Army is in a dire shit shape 😂
Well the NZDF page should stop trying to recruit lesbians with their ad campaign.. and they make the look army look a bit pathetic on their YT channel.
I'm an ex 7 WNHB Infantryman from the Lange and Clarke Government eras, now merged as 5/7. Blame Helen Clarks Government for the removal of our strike wing and more importantly refusing allowing the arty boys to get FH70 155's as the were considered (offensive) weapons and why would we ever be an offensive? Same argument for not allowing the replacement of the A4's for F16s which the previous National Government has aurhorised. Thank heavens the LAV's had started to already arrive otherwise they would probably have been binned to and would still be in a small fleet of Vietnam era M113's. Seeing that existing orbat how depressing....we should have at least 9 infantry battalions but then the biggest challenge now, beyond budget, as back then how do you convince people to serve...not something a lot of western youth are prepared to do these days. Great brief though and food for thought as always, especially as history seems to repeating itself and it feels like the 1930s, from a strategic sense, all over again . To be honest though if anyone has the reach to get this far (i.e. China) we would be fighting as an insurgent force as all our main bases can be overrun within 2 hours of a land force making a landing and even less if they para in. The great wisdom of defence reviews, lets consolidate everything into a triangle within 30km of a long gently shelving hard sand beach and 50km of each other....nup we need to learn from what we have been fighting against since 2001, equip and train accordingly. When China gets numerical parity with the US on the blue then its going to be all on and all the US talk will be just that as they don't have the stomach for the casualties they (AUS and us) will take, nor will they have to physical capability to deliver what has been promised.
@@damionkeeling3103 5/7 is in the current orbat. It's an infantry battalion made up of a merger of 2 territorial infantry battalions in the early 90s. Originally we were 7 Wellington Hawkes Bay with Company HQs and recruitment zones in Wairoa/Gisborne (Alpha) Petone Wgtn (Bravo) Waipukurau (Charlie) Carterton (Delta) Trentham (Support] and Napier (Admin and HQ) 5 Battalion was Wellington West Coast Taranaki my Father's old unit. Linton through to New Plymouth. Now both units are merged into one with reduced manning levels. I don't know where all the Company's are based except one that is here in Whanganui where I currently live.
To say NZ will never be invaded is a shallow thought. If I was going to invade Australia I’d do so via NZ. It has no viable military capability and can provide resources for a greater invading force on Australia.
nz needs to do away with army navy and airforce units and go to more of a us marines model... 1 command structure and more money spent on equipment where it is needed... we wont do that due to command structures not wanting to give up their @history@ rather than adopt what is best for us going forward.
You can discuss platform upgrades/replacements and Infantry doctrine till the cows come home. The defence of NZ's interests has much bigger issues at immediate hand. Right now we have An inf Bde structure that cannot field one inf Battalion. Multiple Ships that cannot go to sea due to lack of key manpower. Aircraft that cannot fly. We currently have a Defence Force that has become mired in wokeness and diversity, a senior leadership that lost their testicles over Covid, Horrendously bloated senior officer numbers. Not to mention a catastrophic reduction in actual capability over the past few years. All backed up by 30 years of inadequate funding for military pay/operational costs/capital purchases/infrastructure maintenance. We are talking a generation to get back to the 1970's and our actual capability level of that era. First step is to get bi partisan buy in to a long term decent funding model. Since the late 1980's all I heard at every budget round from the chief Financial Officer and his minions was "we need to find a 6%/10%/5%/15% cut across the board. If we have to go on Offensive operations, now would be the worst time in 30 years to have to go.
The appetite for working with the Australians *closely* after the experience of working with them in East Timor and Afghanistan is likely to be low for a decade or more: the Australians simply are not to be relied upon for any professionalism. The war crimes records and the extent to which their military tried to avoid responsibility speak to a pervasive mindset amongst the Australian military that is just too dangerous for NZ forces to be around. It's the major reason why the NZ forces suddenyl refused to work with the Australians in Afghanistan: no desire to be caught up in their antics, war crimes, and culture of denial. It would be a major mistae to get closer to the Aussies until they sort their shite out. The odd thing about all that is that the NZ Army actually has the greater amount of combat and deployment experience institutionally. It was constantly deploying during the 80's and 90's and into the 2000's until today. Australia had very few deployments or actual experience post-Vietnam until East Timor.
What a load of BS. I've served in both the NZ and Australian army. What you claim is total rubbish. The Australian army is every bit as professional as NZ. The training in Australia is far far better, both in terms of realism, ammunition allocation and honest after action reviews. All of which were severly lacking during my time in NZ.
@@damolux3388 If only the Australians could resist committing war crimes. And trying to cover them up afterwards. And then still denying it even after it's been proven. I did like the part where you prattled on about their training at length and completely ignored the points I made about actual experience and deployments. But hey, gotta cling to what you can when you're only recent deployments are marred by multiple incidents of war crimes, eh?
Hey champ, as a veteran of Somalia with 1 RAR I don't recall seeing any NZDF there. Thinking also, I don't recall hearing of you being in Rwanda. If you're referring to NZDF being involved in Peace Keeping Missions, well the ADF has been involved in those too, and I wouldn't call it combat. Please enlighten me of the greater amount of combat and deployment experience the NZDF has over the ADF, and tell me about all this constantly deploying you speak of. I mostly enjoyed my time on EX with my NZ counterparts and my son, who is now serving in the RAR, also has spoken highly of them during EX's such as Talisman Sabre You're talking out of your arse and probably have zero experience in the NZDF.
I like the analysis here! Can I ask, what's the legend for the colour scheme on the ORBAT slide? I've only ever seen ORBATs in either blue or red, so I'd love to learn more! Cheers mate!
Chinese fought like shit in Somalia. The quality of Chinese kit is difficult to gage, they have not sold much to other countries so no independent views. But most of the kit appears to be Russian Soviet era clones, after China ordered a whole bunch of Su-35s and canceled the order after only 2 were delivered and used for cloning. Russia got tough and stopped China from exporting clones and their industry has gone to shit as a result.
Questionable how any of this will function, if Australia were operating nuclear powered submarines. As the NZ policy is to not allow any nuclear vessels into the country. That would curtail any operational deployment of Australian submarines in NZ waters and thereby leave any deployed naval units without that screen. Basically the kiwi government doesn't want a military, they want a few blokes in uniform to act as on call workforce for natural disasters and to strut around a few Pacific island nations. Their capability, whats left of it, is being eroded year by year. All the politicians want is to get elected and for that nice cushy retirement job at the UN. They would rather spend their $ on BS window dressing some social policy than have aircraft capable of protecting their few transport aircraft.
NZ should just merge with the Australian DF but at least have a NZ army regiment and give a couple of navy ships NZ names to retain some identity. We could also provide fighter and helicopter pilots to the Australian Air Force and pay for their training. In Vietnam NZ provided helicopter pilots to fly Australian Iroquois.
@@shanehansen3705 NZ is too small and doesn't have enough $$$ to retain a viable defence force. They're better off merging with Australia. They can make a valuable contribution to Australia. Even though our defence force is small our troops are well trained and our SAS are world class.
@@wellingtonian2009 NO NO and NO many poorer countries have viable defense forces they just don't try to fill them up with top tier equipment there are other options whilst still fielding up to date hardware but there is no way the Aust taxpayer should contribute a cent to NZ's defense forces on any ongoing basis
@@shanehansen3705 I'm not saying Australia should pay for it. NZDF could just be part of the ADF or a joint ANZAC force. NZ can still pay their wages, training and equipment. The problem is our defence force is small.
There should be much greater coordination with not just Australia, but also the UK and Canada. CANZUK should not only be interoperable at every level, but interchangeable. ie it should not matter which country is deploying forces, they can work together effectively.
NZDF has not been involved in an actual combat operation since 1972. Its lack of real experience is the real problem. The NZSAS has experience but they are less than 1% of the Army, the rest of the Army has deployed on 'peacekeeping' and Civil Aid type missions but not on combat operations. The Airforce has no combat capability it is basically a logistics/ freight company that can also do unarmed coastguard duties. The Navy is not really a Navy. If the NZ Army deployed on actual combat operations, even with the best equipment available it would be in for a very rude awakening, only then would changes to the culture such as the 'peacekeeping mentality' which NZDF has been crippled by and stuck in since the early 90's be made, although it would unfortunately take quite a few body bags and coffins before the NZDF pulled its head out of its rear end. Also, the NZ Army constantly reinforces the belief of its member that they are such highly trained soldiers and some of the best in the business, and admired and respected around the world for 'punching above their weight'... which is not true at all, but they are told that and they believe it to be true. Simple fact is the NZDF despite 20 years in afghanistan has no experience of actual combat operations, and has not been involved in one for over half a century.
Makes sense for NZ and Australia to be as inter operable as possible
As a kiwi i don't think the Army would abandon the light infantry doctrine without serious investment. And based on the results of the recent elections we probably aren't going to see that money until after 2030. More than likely the battalion motorised infantry Coys' will be equipped primarily with either Upgraded NZLAV or its replacement as well as Bushmasters and possibly Hawkei pending the outcome of the Protected Mobility Capability Project. Any leap in capability is likely to be dictated by or be heavily influenced by what we get to replace HMNZS Canterbury.
Thanks for the comment. I'll cover HMNZS Canterbury in the Navy briefing.
@@Strategy_AnalysisAs a Canadian I would like to know what you think about New Zealand’s requirement for a southern ocean patrol vessel, and whether the Canadian Arctic offshore patrol vessel would be suitable for this.
@@aawshaw Nz navy already operates vessels with capability to go to the ice. Depending how far south you want to go, the frigates (2), offshore patrol vessels (2), and new replenishment vessel Aotearoa are all capable. Nz has a big search and rescue area, from the tropics to Antartica, so they request designs for new ships that include ice capabilities.
@@aawshaw Good question. I'll cover that when I do the RNZN briefing.
@@mihai2526 some would argue the T ships arent truly deep south ocean capable
an update on the NZ navy situation would be interesting for sure
For such a small country with a small military it has decent amphibious and refueler ships
However its surface fleet is seriously lacking, 2 ANZAC class frigates with very little weapons and sensors
New Zealand originally ordered 4 Meko 200 class frigates but changed their mind during production
It’s a shame really because with the current navy having only 2 frigates means 1 will always be in port or training leaving only 1 warship to actually work
RNZNs biggest issue is retention, be it the navy’s only base is in the most expensive city in NZ, poor pay and poor opportunities makes a career choice in the navy not desirable
Yes. I agree with Jordan. Looking forward to a Navy update thank you.
First they need to get a navy
@@innocentbystander8038 you are technically correct hahaha
@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 I know a lot of former RAN surface/sub fleet, it seems we have the same problem when people would rather leave and work in mining.
As of 2023 NZ Army, debatably the NZDF, is rudderless.
Its not just the dwindling workforce, or the aging equipment, it lacks the pressures from the "Barbarians at the door" to clarify its purpose and set a direction. It is sandwiched between the BAU of being a management school for a very large officer corp, vs a most likely use-case of HADR/Domestic Crisis management (which is not a requested government deliverable of the NZDF) within its operating environment of its EEZ , vs an empty aspirational goal in which NZDF historically strives to be "A world class combat capable military with mana" - able to be deployed on coalition combat operations in far and foreign lands, without defining what "combat" means.
There is also a lack of clarity and guidance from the MFAT or DPMC in clarifying the appetite for risks in its overall NZ strategy on the world stage, which would give military planners a left and right of arc in terms of operating scenarios and equipment required for the NZDF to do its job.
In essence, NZDF doesn't know if it wants to go up or down, left or right. In commercial strategy world, it is compromising its strategic positioning, and thus "dying in the middle ground" (refer to the 2023 - "12 future force design principles" as an illustration of compromise). This is why the new shiny equipment NZDF procures are similar to their coalition partner's, are often not fit for operating within the NZ context, even for training, and hence NZDF is still relying on its older equipment and infrastructure.
In reference to the NZ Army, there is not a lot of foreseeable scenarios which NZ would likely deploy its MIBG. Given NZ primary military focus is Protection of its EEZ, the use of its MIBG is limited to the islands, most likely deployment scenario is in SASO (and HADR) type activity, and its equipment need to be reflective of this.
For example, the reason that during the Cyclone Gabrielle that the decrepit Unimog trucks are still used for primary logistic mover on land and not its newer trucks, is primarily because the light loading on bridges and soft ground in rural NZ. This is also true with the type of environment on the islands within the EEZ. On the same logic, the modern 155mm SPG/Towed gun systems would be far too heavy to operate within the EEZ, and its logistics train requirements would also require heavy movers which would also not function well. This pretty much limits the choice in artillery types that the NZ Army can select from. There are many other examples which demostrates that many of NZ's newly procured equipment cannot operate within its EEZ.
Coming from a coalition perspective, to be a credible combat force, NZDF's equipment has to be able to "plug and play" with its partners. Thus, what NZ's partners consider as a suitable contribution is more important than what NZDF deems to be, but in the end it will be up to the politicians and MFAT to decide what is something one can send without damaging the "NZ Inc". branding, while not having the public see body bags on the 6pm news. And as this analysis has suggested, ADF considers their MIBG to be far higher spec', and this means NZ army's MIBG is unable to "plug and play" and hence the NZDF would be losing its credibility with its partners. Unless the NZ politicians increase its risk appetite and open its war chest, the measly military insurance premium NZ government pays will only keep NZDF on life support, in a vegetative state. NZ Military planners will be relegated to maintaining the status quo; procuring, structuring and training with equipment and doctrine that is designed for conflicts of yesteryear.
There is a way forward. All this requires an ontological shift in how NZ inc defines its national strategy and objectives, which then triggers NZDF's own shift in thinking.
Like all organisations, picking a strategic position that is NOT the middle ground helps. NZ inc needs to do the same.
In the case of NZDF, it operates within a small population and a political climate that is risk averse with low investment. NZDF needs to be small, agile and punching above its weight. It cannot be constrained by doctrine and structure which were designed to fight a conventional war in Europe or SEA in the 1980s, but should be structured for modern conflicts of information, sensing, intelligence, agility and adaptability. In short, mosaic warfare.
In the worse case combat scenario, NZDF needs to consider how as a smaller opponent, can structure itself to maximise its impact and its strategic endgame. This will define how NZ infantry fights in according with the agile and adaptability principles of Mosaic warfare, and applying the same principles to determine how NZ fires-effects could possibly be delivered. Applying these principles along with the concepts explored above, would then help guide the use-case and selection of equipment.
A few examples; Using the same VLS batteries and munitions for ship based and land based strike/AD, unifying network systems for naval gun fire support with land based artillery support, choosing to specialise in an SPG, mounted on SUPACATs which NZDF already maintains a fleet of. Having small naval helicopters which can be used for ISR in both SASO and HADR, but also able to provide close air support. Dual-purposing each of the equipment sets across the 3 services, streamlining supply chains, while minimising duplication of effort.
By specialising, and doing things differently it forces coalition partners to take account of the unique capabilities and appropriately assign missions their forces are not equipped in achieving, and there are already examples of certain specialised capabilities that the coalition forces calls from the NZDF.
An enabling action for future force design, is the fast adoption of new technology; working smarter, more agile and maximising human resource, while minimising the kill chain. The problem however is that, tech saavy operators are currently considered an enlisted rank and are not empowered or reimbursed the same as knowledge workers such as officers. As an example, across the world, many CEMA, RPAS, ROV operators gain the skills in the military, and leave to earn 3-4x the salaries in private sectors doing exactly the same thing. The only way militaries has been able to retain these skillsets is to enlarge its specialised units as reserve forces.
NZDF would need to shift the power currently retained by a large officer corp, to its operational knowledge workers, and enable similar pay, training opportunities and progression traditionally available in their officer corp, similar to how private companies are run. Selection of such workers would need to change, as will kill chains and operating structures.
It could be argued that the special operations forces already possess a similar culture, structure and layout, the question is how would this structure apply across services (Army, Navy, Airforce) or within their specialties, and whether that would affect NATO standardisations when working across with coalition partners.
One thing is certain, if one focuses on the Toys rather than the context, one will always buy the same but shinier toy, rather than the tool that best fulfills the context in the future.
A very comprehensive, and thoughtful, post. Thank you. As I suggest in the briefing, NZ's leadership will need to understand what they have signed up for.
The nz leadership needs a push from Australian leadership and some procurement and maintenance help from Australian leadership nz politicians have become soft on what they think they need knowing that nz doesn’t need to defend itself when australia will do it for them issues go far beyond vehicles
NIce. Your next book needs to be about logistics.
Is NZ able to survive on its own farming and agriculture and ranching? I think there is at least a 5% chance of a total global economic depression within 3 years. And it will be the worst in history.
It wasn't that long ago--- 1960--- China had a famine that killed millions of its citizens. There are people who claim that we could double the world population with no problem. And that is true, *IF* nothing goes wrong and the supply chain runs perfectly.
However, we are going to experience changing weather patterns, like drought.And China seems to get the worst of everything, like this past year. They had crazy heat and drought, and a few months later, in the same massive flooding. They import SO much food. If and when the supply chains get broken... chaos. You can't feed over a billion people with soup kitchens. And it will hasten the global depression.
Another thing...wow... I just realized NZ and Australia don't have a huge problem with immigrants.... No need to build a wall, NZ holds the world record for the largest moat.
Yr wrong reference rural bridges and the Unimog. Stock trucks regularly use them weighing 44tonne, including trailer… some ‘ mogs were maintained as the new MAN doesn’t have the water fording ability the Unimog does…
Holy cow. Dude went on a DEEP dive... @@Strategy_Analysis
Interesting. I recall back in the 90’s 1 RNZIR had a mechanized company (W) that informally specialised in working with QAMR (cavalry) M113’S. Coy deployed to Bosnia in 94. I no longer serve but years ago in 2013 I took part in a gap analysis as part of an ABCA multinational division HQ in Kandahar. Back then, and at the Division level, interoperability with the US Military’s communication systems / networks was a challenge from memory.
Interesting. Thanks. Yes comms is often one of the more challenging aspects of interoperability.
You used my suggestion for the topic! Thanks mate😊 great video
I would love to see more Nz military content, your a talented youtuber, you inform your audience well
I second this!
Boxer would be an ideal platform for NZ. Purchase and operational costs should decrease quickly now that production is happening within Australia and Germany itself ordering ~100 Boxers from Australia.
If it’s not tracked it’s ka ka 😂😂😂
It’s too heavy for NZ Air force.
Would love to see a video on the RNZN
The L119 light gun is indeed not ideal for near peer conventional combat in the desert or plains of Europe. How ever it is still the best weapon system in the world to support dismounted infantry in disruptive and complex terrain like the jungles of South East Asia, the mountains central Asia and the islands of the South west pacific, the most likely places the NZDF will have to fight, further it is integrative with US artillery who still maintain this capability for this reason. If the NZDF is required to use the ADF M777 then the conversion is simple and easy being about a week long.
Very good point re the current towed 105mm gun. If manpower is the central theme of this supposed 'Composite Division' containing Kiwis, Ozzies, Americans, etc., then how about NZ providing the soldiers and Australia providing its vehicles for these Kiwi soldiers to operate and fight with? Can't get more interoperability than that if the Ozzies supplied their own equipment for Kiwi soldiers to use in such a division. Furthermore, such a proposed arrangement would get this 'Composite Division' training and operating in very short order in this still very dangerous world we all live in.
@@sandorbiczo8094 That's about the most sensible thing I've heard about NZ integration. The NZDF is so poor and gutted over the last 40 years it's really sad. Otherwise NZ should probably invest in a lightweight airborne/transportable Army and maybe bluewater capable patrol vessels. Quite hard to make a credible force with a population of only 5 million.
It would even make sense to have Aussie bases in NZ with infrastructure to support shared costs. It would go down better that say a US base for instance.
Hopefully there will be some force multiplier technology in drones if China ever manages to take Taiwan.
It seems insane to me that NZ has no real native Airforce power when the Island set makes for an ideal location to launch an air campaign in self defence and probably cheaper than fleshing out a Navy we can't afford, to cover so much ocean. It's more of a civil defence force than a credible military these days.
If Japan had made it to NZ during WW2 maybe there would be some cultural awareness about our own security but think the general attitude is we're so small and far away, what can we do about it if it occurs as it's also very unlikely. I mean they'd have to get past our big Cousin Aussie and UK and US, a possie with the biggest kid on the block.
New Zealand produces 25 times more food than it consumes which China might want. If Zelandia gets ratified into NZ fishing grounds it would be massive.
I can't help but feel like bait sometimes for China reunification plan 2050 to contest the entire Pacific Island chain capable of blocking all shipping according to Peter Zeihan.
....I personally think NZ's strategy of having (...basically) a light infantry-based army is a sound one....and not because it is the cheapest option. Firstly, I must confess I am not an infantry expert, I just spent a few years in WAI/WEC and QAMR (....M113s/Recce Landrovers, respectively). My view is that light infanty still have a role to play on the modern battlefield. There are still built up areas, Pacific Islands (...potentially) and 'jungles' to be fought through....and others have made this comment already in this forum. Once again, I'm not a Navy expert either but the world is on the cusp of fielding AI driven military platforms, and NZ could quite conceivably be at the forefront of introducing things like a patrol drone that could stay aloft for a couple of months at a time to keep an closer eye over our EEZ (....exclusive economic zone). If Albatross birds can stay aloft at sea for most of their lives I can't see why a specifically designed and AI controlled surveillance drone couldn't do the same thing. There will always be a place for 'boots on the ground, or in a Navy context, a manned combat surface vessel, but it's all about leveraging NZs limited personnel pool in the best possible way (...and managing our limited economic resources in the best possible way).
I disagree I think 120mm for direct infantry support or 155mm for higher level heavy gun. I dont think there is a real spot for 105mm towed guns in modern warfare, any firesupport has to be self propelled or man portable
@@knowahnosenothing4862 Japan did make it to NZ, they flew a plane from a submarine over Auckland. The Germans were also active mining shipping lanes around NZ.
The self propelled battery & armoured calvary sounds great plus the 2 APC companies make a well rounded mobile group.
Next gen army helmets require a gimballed feature which allows a soldier to always see directly above them, in a wide range of helmet orientations. This feature needs to work in infra-red at night, and so the night vision system should be a part of the vertical periscope. It would be handy if the system monitored the projected image, and raised a warning upon detecting drone-like movement, in case the soldier's attention is focused elsewhere.
This is needed because both attack and spotter drones are now so quiet, the ground troops can't hear them. And they don't see the munitions dropped from the drones, and they don't see the artillery shells which follow the spotter drones by just 90- seconds or so.
I have always thought maybe NZ should try and concentrate on a more amphibious force, they have canterbury as the main ship, buy some ACV (USMC amphibious combat vehicles) or some of the other amphibions in the patria family. Also AUS is looking at LARC replacements. Make a unit close in both concept and equipment to the australian PLF (pre landing forces). They probably need top pick up some smaller landing ships. But theres quite a few options what ever aus picks as MLMV (medium litoral maneuver vessel) maybe they could get a good deal on the 2 independence because they have RORO capability. Could also look at STRB-80s for patrol or section landing
I'll be doing a briefing on the new Littoral Manoeuvre Vessels once they're announced.
Would also add an HHC/HQ Coy and a Forward Support Coy (FSC: Maint, Log, support like fuelers) to your NZ Bn
Yes, absolutely.
the lack of equipment reminds me of the NZ forces propensity to get their hands on allied "lost" equipment in ww2
you bring out the main point. with the main issue being budget. NZ military have been more than aware of budget limits and has always had the view that they can not be self contained (this idea only get more expensive with time) but will arm and equip themselves for subordinate roles in larger allied armies - Aus, UK and US. its always been that way.
Sounds like a lot of upgrades required and not a lot of money to go around.
Probably the best way to stretch that money is to get 155mm SPG's and perform an update of the NZLAV. But honestly, an update on the NZLAV probably isn't going to provide the capabilities required. It's too low for survivability for near peer and starting to be questionable for anti-insurgent roles. Plus, any armour upgrade loses the amphibious capabilities. Honestly LAV's are at the stage where they're peacekeeping, reserve, low intensity or specific use only. Amphibious capability could at times be extremely useful but the tradeoff in capability has seen that fall from favor, but for a support role in underdeveloped infrastructure areas or even in aid for flooded regions it could be important.
NZ LAV3's aren't even amphibious we bought the cheaper ones.
The NZDF would need some serious funding in order to be ready for a deployment on the scale we are talking here. The reserve units don't even train with the gear they would use on deployment as there is a shortage of said equipment. It's highly unlikely the new government is going to invest in systems such as boxer when the purchase of the bushmasters has already stretched the budget. Not to mention that the DF often has to ask the Australians to airlift its equipment for it, as the RNZAF fleet of air transporters is often breaking down. Also considering NZ politicians are very cautious about staying friendly with China, greatly out of step with our traditional allies. The new Prime Minister is very keen to join President Xi's belt and road initiative to get loans for New Zealand's very low quality public road infrastructure which needs investment.
I would love to see evidence that national is interested in belt and road initiative.... that's basically a debt trap to facilitate Pla territory access in nation's that sign on.
@@dna6882 Luxon has expressed his interest in it recently on breakfast TV. He clearly wants to stay chummy with China, who is obviously our largest trading partner. He said something about the huge amount of capital that the initiative would allow us to access.
@@HunterLord458 can you link this evidence.... I'd love to see what exactly he said
@@dna6882 I tried to link a 1news piece about it but youtube doesn't like it. If you google "Luxon belt and road" it should be the first one that comes up. He's very open to the idea
belt and road only goes to countries they know cant afford it
Thanks so much, I have been wondering where we are at
Awesome mate... proud of our NZDF! 👍🇳🇿
Thanks..much appreciated.
Where to next for the RNZAF? That would be very interesting to see if its possible to get jets again.
1 would hope so
We need a maritime/ close air support capability
Considering how vast our area of operations & influence is
I'm not sure a Boxer works for NZ as I don't thing they can drive on most civilian roads owing to weight. So not much use internally or in the region
New Zealand forces could rotate Coy by Coy to Australia for integrated training using our equipment. That would also allow the different officers to get to know each other. German armoured personnel used to go to Camp Shilo in Canada for field exercises for example.
There is really no point in us Kiwis having a fighting arm, we are just too small to be able to be of any real use.
We would be better to concentrate on support roles / emerging technology.
@@oggaBugga Sounds great - support roles and emerging technology. But it is not really going to happen is it? Certainly not at a level to make a difference. NZ has a population and wealth similar to the Australian state of Victoria and is very capable of making a solid contribution to a collective defense of small nations that rely on open sealanes and to deter predation by larger countries . It is just that NZ governments over the past 30 years have abrogated these responsibilities to Australia and the US. NZ defense spending have averaged just 1.2% of GDP for the past decade - which is way too little. Anyhow the prospect of fighting CCP proxies in South West Pacific has increased - not sure if NZ policy elite or the public have woken up to the threat as yet.
@@dweller6065 Lol, why would we fight against China?
They are our largest trading partner and far more reliable than our traditional allies....
New Zealand is always going to be at a disadvantage in manpower so we should look to lift the quality of our infantry to as high a standard as possible.
I always thought our army should have a course our personnel can go through to get Ranger qualified based on the US 75 Ranger Regiment standards.
Have the RASP 1 and 2 courses which people will go through based on their rank if they get through the course they will come out airborne qualified and capable of supporting NZSAS or any other special operations force when they're on operations.
I wouldn't have a stand-alone ranger company because it will take too many good people from the infantry battalions.
Personnel could qualify from the course then go back to their infantry battalions which will be a great asset to the battalions and they would have to pass periodic fitness tests and parachuting to keep their Ranger TAB.
It would effectively create a tier 2 level of soldiers in the NZDF which would bring so many benefits without creating additional demands on manpower.
1.Enhance our infantry battalions all NCO should be encouraged to go through the course.
2. We would have soldiers in the infantry battalions that are special operations capable that could deploy with NZSAS to support them on operations and develop as soldiers at the same time.
3. It would be a great way to help prepare soldiers who have aspirations to be in the NZSAS they will be able to enter the NZSAS selection course better prepared which could potentially get more people through the NZSAS pipeline without lowering standards.
As long as we keep the yanks out of here. no base...or is it already happening..Good report thanks.
Thank you for this presentation. The New Zealand Army has attempted a number of times to move away from its doctrine of a Light Infantry construct.
Key areas where attempts have been made:
- 1996 - 98 'Fire Team Concept. This was a reorganisation of the Light Infantry Section into Alpha and Bravo Teams with a Reconnaissance modus operandi. For the Infantry Platoon, the sub units was expanded to a fourth section that acted as the defacto heavy weapons section for the platoon.
The concept was to decentralised the Infantry Company into 'Dispersed Operations' with an emphasis on flexibility, the 'Freedom of Action' in Manoeuvre Warfare' and required the a higher level of leadership, command at the junior level and this also required the junior leader to be strategically aware and comprehensively understand the 'three up' in the command structure.
The constraints for the new concepts of the time was, the increase of equipment for the unit and subunit. Weight burdened mobility. The other constraints was communications, command and control for co ordination. The NZ Army at the time relied heavily on an analogue, Vietnam era communications system. The former army reader would recognise this as the M77 radio. This radio (as mentioned) highly aged and degraded by time, making communications as unreliable.
Concurrently, at the time, global operations were ramping up to an unpredictable and 'fluid' environment that required a higher degree of flexibility and an emphasis on the junior commander. This coincided with the 'Three Block Model' approach published by USMC General Kulak along with the US Army's Future Combat Systems, championed by Eric Shinseki (CRS Report 2009) with the main premise: 'To outsmart and out manoeuvre'. This provides the NZ Army to move away from Cold War era Corps / Regimental organisations that had a tendency to be insular.
This is a transformation from the heavy Cold War armoured Force Concept. For New Zealand, provided an opportunity to move away from institutional Cold War thinking of ridged Corps / Regimental system that at times had a tendency to be insular and transition to highly mobile, a flexible, digitalised real time communications (audio, visual) and a quick thinking, quick to act independent organisation benefited NZ greatly as a small state. This concept evolved into the NZ Motorised Battalion Concept.
In 2004-06, NZ purchased initially 105 Canadian General Dynamics LAV 3 wagons with the development of the NZ Infantry Motorised Concept that is very similar to the US Army's Stryker Concept that would potentially lead to the further purchase of Medical, Engineer, Command and Control, even a possible Fire Support LAV.
This lead further to communications and co ordination with the potential to purchase the Blue Force Tracking, allowing for the first time an digitised system for commanders to communicate and co ordinate in real time. Sadly, this was not purchased, but the foundations were prepared for future possible procurement.
Reconnaissance would need to be expanded and mounted in light high mobility vehicles with enhanced surveillance and electronic warfare systems. This even included the early designs of drones.
The LAV concept supported dismounted Infantry and provided a high, sustainable tempo of mobility.
To support the deployment, the Navy developed an amphibious doctrine to support army operations. This is reflected in the purchase of the HMNZS Canterbury from the Netherlands.
The phrase at the time to conceptually explain was: 'From the Teeth to the Tail'. Meaning an independent Task Group that was self sustaining from a logistical standpoint.
So what happened???
The Infantry Fire Team Concept, along with the Motorised Infantry Battalion Concept = Challenged the Status Quo. As mentioned, the NZ Army organisation and culture revolves around 2 key themes: (i) The Regimental System (ii) Stalwarts, hardliners known as: 'The Singapore Generation' (A term referring to the NZ base in Singapore and those posted there) pushed back and attempted to disrupt the transformation.c 'They' originate from the boomer - Senior Gen X elk that have progressed from the post NZ Vietnam era that has had a strong influence in personality and institutional thinking that has echos in the NZ Army today. In the words of an Austrian anthropologist: 'Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast'.
From a sense, this means in terms of stakeholders within the army, there would be a 'Winner, Loser Model'. In essence, this challenged the stalwarts within the armoured corps and the infantry and the cliche influence. Even with the Establishment of the School of Combat, each wing maintains the historical practice and functions separately.
Individual champions within the NZ Army, innovate, not the organisation. There is a tendency for innovations to run out of momentum and all too often overwhelmed by barriers, bureaucracy and traditionalist / stalwarts (as previously mentioned) reverts back to historical patterns constraining its ability to study, analyse and implement incremental change in doctrine and other forms of practice.
Hence, the NZ Army's current predicament that now effects attrition.
Thanks for the very comprehensive comment. Militaries must be prepared to change if needed, but not fall into the trap of change for changes sake.
The PLA havnt moved much from their overwhelming the enemy in numbers doctrine, so with this in mind the L119 would provide New Zealand with a short range arty system. I feel that as a bigger force, if we invent in a Air to Ground capability, or even try get the skyhawks back, they might be out dated but they(with some modern munitions) can provide a close surrport capability, which allows New Zealand to keep the L119s and expand the capability of the RNZAF. As you stated the PLA is the most likely threat in New Zealand, however we are mostly on peacekeeping operations and talking to a few people we(in a major conflict) would see only a base security force, (to the protest of many solders) or if anything a low threat patrol while the Americans would do the more threating patrols. Talking to a few people they see Austrilia as a direct action force and should we work with them, the Aussie unit would be an attacking force while New Zealand is more of a defensive force. However New Zealand has an infantry offensive capability that isn't seen in the public eye. Although this is limited to light warfare with infantry and lightly armored vehicles and nothing else. However I do enjoy your analysis and have earnt a sub from that!
Thanks for the comment and sub. From what's been publicly released so far re Plan ANZAC, the NZ BN Group will be part of the AUS Motorised BDE, which AFAIK will not be designed to go up against peer/near-peer force. This would broadly be consistent with your comments.
@@Strategy_Analysis no problem man, you seam to know what your talking about and we share a common interest.
A 4 Skyhawks
Jeez
We could've had F 16 C /D for 75 Sqn which would of been ideal
But the Govt at the time turned down a bargin from the US
I mean even the F 16 are an obsolete platform compared to other Attack aircraft
But they still would of been better then what we have now.....
An with a comprehensive modernization an avionics upgrade
The F 16 block 4 I believe it is called now?
Is still rolling off the production lines an equipping Airforces with strike capabilities.
NZ is to Australia what Canada is to America - a small, close, dependable ally that needs ALOT of capability investment
One solution is for the nation with the smaller pockets to supply the manpower and the nation with the larger pockets to supply the mobility. NZ would have to pay for the upkeep in service, but purchase and later sell-off would be Australia's responsibility. A small number would reside in NZ for training, most would remain in Australia waiting to mate up with their operators on exercise or deployment.
@@aaronleverton4221 Sounds too sensible, why in the world did we do anything else.
If NZ can not make a meaningful contribution l, how can it possibly be considered dependable?
Thanks, great analysis, as always! It would be easy to get all romantic about the Spirit of ANZAC; and yet, I do believe that is one of the greatest assets for both countries. As an integrated force, we will be stronger and more effective than the sum of our parts. NZ can also help guide Australia in humanitarian assistance and disaster response missions in Polynesia; my sense is that NZ, with its sizable Pasifika population, has a better awareness and understanding of those countries than does Australia (hopefully we will catch up, soon).
Thanks for the comment. Yes, most of the time our interests will align, and working together makes a lot of sense,
As a Kiwi who has lived in Australia for over 20 years and was formerly a member of the New Zealand Army, I agree wholeheartedly. Not that NZ's record in the South Pacific is perfect. But NZ would help smooth out the rough edges of Australian foreign policy, while Australia is less naive concerning some of our trading partners to the north. And both should make greater efforts in the South Pacific region to aid and partner with our neighbours. Someone else is.
try getting either major party to sign off the funding for these changes. we only replaced to orions and hercs because the airforce told them they were about to fall out the sky, and even then the opposition called it a waste of money. and 20 years ago the us was gonna give us f16s basically for free and the government of the time said no its too expensive
Funding is certainly a challenge. But NZ have signed up to this contribution.
Both frigates have undergone recent upgrades, we have a (relatively) new fuel ship, and we also replaced the Hueys with NH90s. The Seasprites' replacement is in the cards in the not too distant future also (my guess is a Blackhawk variant, but we'll see).
@@mr2981 are the black hawks too big for our ships? I like the idea but I seem to remember reading they're not an option due to size. I thought the sea sprites were quite a bit smaller but haven't looked into this for many years...
@@luciddaze248 That is an excellent question, and I should mention that it is the SH-60 variant that is one of the probable contenders. Because ot its size it can operate from some but not all NZ ships. I don't think I can post links here but if you google for an article on defsec about maritime helicopters from a while back that looked at all the criteria.
@@mr2981 Indeed. I'll probably do a RNZN and RNZAF brief soon.
Interesting post, thank you. I'm pretty old and looked at joining the forces after leaving school which was just as the cold war was winding down. I was in army cadets for a few years and got to see how expansive our forces were in those days...1988-1991. Fastforward to modern day...and decade upon decade of governments Blue or Red or Greenish have all underfunded and incoherently organised our military to the point of indignity. Maybe the worst thing in my humble opinion is the terrible performance in regards to hardware purchases - HMNZ Charles Upham, the Lavs that couldn't be transported anywhere by air, the navy patrol boats that never go to sea and ancient C130s all badly damaged the reputation and capacity of the armed forces in our Country. The recent C130 and Posideon purchases look great on paper, but whats backing them up? Our economy can't sustain more than a month or two of war materiale if a real conflict lands on our shores. Than goodness for defence treaties!
Thanks for the post, Steve. We may be moving into a (Brave) New World.
I thought the whole point of the LAV was to be transported by air?
We need to focus on tech.....missiles, drones, space.....god knows how but clock may be ticking. Big ticket...targets....like frigates are a waste. Would love to see us have ournown naval surveilance li g range drones....capable of carrying one or two missiles of need be.
I highly doubt that any potential adversary is ever going to land anything on our shores, one good reason: they would firs have to destroy the entire conventional American navy to do so. Can you imagine trying to supply materiel support from China to New Zealand? i don't think anyone actually realises just HOW far away we are from.... everything. So while your complaints aren't unfounded i don't think they are said in good faith. We don't need to defend ourselves, distance largely does that for us. If you think about our military more Siloed it makes more sense. The Air force has c130J and Poseiden for its two primary missions, disaster relief and maritime patrol. The Navy mainly does the same, and has ships designed and fielded accordingly. There is almost no connection between the LAV being air-lifted and the C-130, because its not like New Zealand has a corollary to the 101st airborne. The army sits in a strange space, as without the focus on non-combat missions that the Navy and Air Force primarily undertake they are a bit of a lame duck. They are primarily defensive, that is obvious, but they have to fight in a conventional manner, but that job is primarily in SUPPORT of our allies, for international relations reasons, not because there is any fear of PLA boots on the Hibiscus Coast. With that in mind funding decisions are a lot more flighty, as they are seen by the political stripes of all sides as simply one of many ways to curry international favour. We aren't the USA, we aren't providing international deterrence against malignant states across the world.
All that said, i don't think you are necessarily wrong, but we aren't in a unique space, the peace dividend has hit everyone hard for the last 30 years. Think of how Germany, fucking Germany, is struggling with its own procurement processes, and they are in a geographical location where their geopolitical rivals CAN obliterate them into the stone age. So lets not pretend like we are uniquely useless, we just decided it was better to give all the wealthy dudes fat tax breaks rather than investing in things that can actually make us safe. But you could write that same sentence about any Western economy and not be far from the truth.
@@pinkyfull finally some fucking sanity. if this was reddit id give you an award😅
Noclador does some great ORBAT diagrams, many countries on wikipedia
It makes sense that we have an integrated ANZAC approach as much as possible! Our Airforce and Navy should integrate as much as possible as well. Our new Poseidon and Hercules are a step forward. And maybe we should re establish an interceptor capacity by having say 15% of the Aussie fighters permanently based in Queensland with the odd training sortie over the Southern Alps and Mount Tongrairo just like the old days!
Yes, but no fast jet contribution from the RNZAF ?
Why should Australia waste its scarce resources defending nz? NZ is not part of Australia and Australia can't defend itself. The much loathed and incompetent Labor govt are destroying Australia's defence forces.
no offence why is everyone assuming that australia should be paying the bills for the defence of NZ. Deploying '15%' of our fighters to NZ is going to cost money is NZ going to cover it. NZ has option to federalize with Australia as a state. If they want AUS to defend then they have that option
@richardthomson4693 the option was given to nz at Australia's federation. They didn't want it then or now and quite frankly, as an Australian, I don't want them as part of Australia. Let them pay for their own defence. Once they were a proud country but since that adhern creature they are an undefended mess. Apartheid albo just hasn't got australia to that stage yet.
@@paddlesmcbean2366 I agree we should pay our own way, but to what end? What are we defending ourselves from, we have no enemies.
The only enemy we would have would be China, *IF* we followed Australia and became a US puppet.......But what is the point in creating an enemy from our largest trading partner, just to bend over and take it from the americans?
*PS, no one here likes ardern, hence her quitting before the elections.
We need to immediately form a drone unit and indigenous design and production across all forms of drones including some form anti submarine drones....in addition, we should contract Rocketlab to launch our own mini version of skylink and a few geostationary survelillanc satellites and underwater sub detectors placed throughout our waters. I would also look at the latest Patriots....we may need them. I would send a few observers to Ukraine to look and learn
"Is New Zealand's Army prepared for the next war?"....No, we would never be, no matter how much funding was allocated.
If New Zealand is looking to upgrade our artillery forces we should buy buy some tracked MLRS like the M270.
The Americans have developed a extended range 227mm rocket that goes 150Km.
They also have the precision strike missile which is replacing ATACMS.
It can go 310 miles with plans to double that and have an anti ship capability.
It would give us the artillery capability to compete on any battlefield and being tracked could be used on any terrain.
The 105mm artillery could be kept to supplement the MLRS.
The guns are very mobile and will be great for the Pacific theatre.
I read about the 105mm being used in Ukraine and they really like them they're accurate, easy to move, and easy to conceal.
Thanks Bro... Please think about getting a mic. Damn near blow my ears out when you start a new sentence!
Mate, why did the RNAF have less issues with their MR90’s compared to Australia?
Excellent question. I'll touch on it in the next briefing which covers RNZAF and RNZN. Hopefully out on Saturday (Australian time).
The ture issue for NZDF is: Who is the enemy?
New Zealand's military has not been involved in any major wars for decades.（I'm talking about deploying overseas in units of at least a brigade.)
I think NZDF's mission in the future should focus on protecting those oversea Kiwis and make sure they back to home alive when other countries fall into chaos or provide humanitarian aid.
Therefore, the Russian Battalion tactical group is a good choice for the New Zealand Army. Although this small unit with enhanced firepower cannot handle a large-scale war, the BTG proved its value in small-scale conflicts during the Donbas war and the intervention of Syria.
And I disagree with the idea of purchasing Boxer to replace the LAV III, it's too heavy for the RNZAF C-130J's cargo bay. The APC version of boxer without the turret weighs 36 tons!
In comparison, Rosomak seems like a better choice. With a combat weight of 22 tons, Rosomak integrated a two-man turret carrying a 30mm Bushmaster automatic gun. This means that the RNZAF could use the C-130J to transport KTO Rosomak by reducing the fuel and ammunition inside the vehicle.
But according to feedback from my friends in the Army, NZ Army does not have any combat capabilities and faces serious manpower shortages.
Therefore a well developed navy may be more useful than a mini army.
Boxer could cover all! Scout /recon, apc , air defence ( oerlikon like!) nemo mortar system ,155 mounted, ambo,engineers; recovery etc etc! Backed up with Bushmasters, Hawkei and uparmored HDX trucks! All Aussie made ,of course! All wheeled ,fast, safe and deadly!
And Redback ?
have mates at MoD and they say that boxer is very unlikely, too big and heavy
New Zealand has bright people and Ukraine has shown that the next war involves drones, AI, electronic warfare etc. this actually plays well to New Zealand creativity and industriousness, and is less manpower dependent which new Zealand will always be deficient in.
Yes, NZ should certainly be looking for capabilities that aren't pers intensive.
Yeah, those are very broad fields though.
We can't even have decent roads, so highly unlikely we are going to be competitive in next generation war fighting, especially when you consider how slow the Brigadiers in Wellington are at adapting to change.
We are for all intents and purposes a US colony, they themselves are in many cases decades behind the Russians and even the Chinese in regards to advanced military technology.
The best thing we could do, is become the Switzerland of the Southern Hemisphere ( or what Switzerland used to be ).
Declare neutrality and concentrate on services we can offer the world.
@@oggaBuggawhat military technology is the US decades behind Russia and China?
@@Stephen-bq4nq Cruise missiles, air defence systems and Electronic Warfare systems for starters.
@@oggaBugga The US have excellent cruise missiles with Stealth built into them like JASSAM the Russians and Chinese don't have them.
The Patriot system has been kicking ass in Ukraine and so has the NASAM system.
What does Russia and China have that compares to the SM3 Missile and the THADD missile's for air defence.
The US is pouring money into electronic warfare after neglecting it for a long time and no way are they decades behind with the military industrial complex they have it won't take long for them to field new systems.
I'd hope that if it isn't possible now that willing kiwis should be able to join the Australian military whether army Air Force or navy.
Dont hold your breath for anything that requires money, you will either have a government like now which is short sighted and saving money focused or a government like before that is scared to commit to anything that might be seen as aggressive or anti China. Its a lose lose in my opinion
Being previously from the NZ army long time ago, nothing has changed
What do you think of the RCH 155 on the Boxer chassis as this would give commonality with the APC and IFV. For NZ.
And on a bit of a tangent, what about ordering more of the APC & IFV boxers as well as the RCH for the Australian army now that the labour government has cut the numbers of Redbacks and K9's? As I believe, they would be substantially better than what we are going to be left with. (ex 2/14 trooper)🇦🇺
There should be much greater coordination with not just Australia, but also the UK and Canada.
CANZUK should not only be interoperable at every level, but interchangeable. ie it should not matter which country is deploying forces, they can work together effectively.
Would AS-9/K-9 not also be a good option for self propelled gun?
The Koreans are happy to sell, and the ADF is buying them, I think they also take less crew than something like Cesar.
It seems like Boxer CRV could cover the IFV role, if NZ found itself needing that job covered. It might say recon on the tin, but it's well armoured, and has good enough firepower for that job.
I doubt they would go for a tracked SPG with their limited budget. Wheeled ones are cheaper, lighter and often simpler and easier to maintain.
although i would personally love to see such modernizations, our governments, regardless of parties are known to be a bit stingy when it comes to defence budgets
prob not as the army uses the public roads to get to training grounds. they wouldn't want to invest in heavy vehicles required to transport them to and from bases just to train
@@thepolishnz That is a partial consideration and a decent point, however the K9 can use full rubber tracks, which also reduces the weight, and even if the don't use full rubber track pretty much everyone has moved away from aggressive track.
@@thepolishnzunless they based their heavy equipment in Australia. us army is starting to do that. Singapore has dont that for years. Essentially they fly over here for regular exercises and go home when it is finished. Massive training ranges as well.
It looks like they use a lot of the same kit as the Irish army.
With China’s increasing capability and aggression in the region I wouldn’t be so sure that NZ doesn’t need to worry about a conventional invasion.
China doesn't need to invade militarily. All it has to do is push Chinese immigration and over time those biological ties will bear fruit. It's not like there is a competing national culture in NZ. China is already doing the soft 'invasion' around the world. Arkansas recently demanded a Chinese company sell off farmland that it was using to produce fodder for export which was using excessive water in a dry area.
100% agree. They have a lot of resources China desperately needs. Without any combat aircraft and practically no navy, they are almost up for grabs.
@TuproMcBro-hj4fhwhilst fair, NZ is at the end of Chinas reach, like in WW2. They just need to be decent, to chip away and hold ground.
Its like thr RAAF doesn't hold a candle to the US airforce, but having nurmerous airfields and naval bases arouns the world for America to use, and they sort out their own defences for the most part. Thats all NZ needs to do.
Even if China had an army of a billion people, it can only ferry over so many people into NZ at a time. The ocean creates a bottleneck.
There is no urgent need for China to occupy New Zealand mainland.
I love the term "conventional invasion". It makes me think of what does an "unconventional invasion" looks like? Economical, cyber, and migration could be other possible vectors of not necessarily invasion but strong influence applied to NZ.
What about medium and long distance air defence. No MLRS..
No MLRS or air defence.
I honestly think every American ally or partner should adopt the American Brigade Combat Team format. Whether armored, wheeled mechanized or infantry. It is far superior to the Russian Battalion Tactical Group setup and makes your military easily interchangeable with an American that you may be merged with.
I agree as well, but besides some notable exceptions most militaries are moving to the brigade centric model. This is because of the aforementioned reasons you stated as well as others.
Our entire army - except reserves - would not be large enough to form a brigade size formation.
From what ive seen, the Russians have better equipment and a better military system with none of the LBGT*-- crap that America has.
@@267BISMARK are you high? Russia isn't even close to parity with the US in terms of conventional arms. It isn't even in the same ballpark! Not small arms. Not tanks. Not ships. Not planes. Nothing. If Russia and the US finds itself in a conventional conflict, the US would dismantle it in a matter of days. Hell, Russia can't even defeat its neighbour.
@267BISMARK you're having a laugh, surely...
The New Zealand's Defence Force has been long overdue a serious investment to significantly increase its martial capabilities since being effectively declawed by the Helen Clark government.
Boxers to replace our Lavs would be nice there’s even a 155mm arty module for it that Ukraine has ordered. Would love for us to get a new Sam system the Skygaurd system would be good for us as uses same camm missile our frigates use. Would be nice but with how much Covid cost probably just dreaming 😢
A full ANZAC force would be a good idea or an Oceania Force
The Pacific opponent is well equipped, but poorly trained and led with little combat experience. Such a war would require all types of forces. What would be bad for NZ is to develop a force too heavy for its (and AUS's) air/sealift capabilities.
Did you mention Vietnam. I understand the NZ army onced helped save the Aussies in Vietnam?
Yes, I did mention Vietnam.
Yes, I did mention Vietnam.
Save??
Minimise the army, invest the navy and airforce to protect the maritime interest
Need all 3 to work in cohesion
Air
Land
Sea
No point having Navy or Airforce without Army to secure grounds an maintain the land with which Airforce an Navy bases both operate from
pls keep this up, because those ai voice creators are just annoying and souless.
Near peer capability = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Unfortunately, NZ has been underinvesting in its defence forces for decades and to some extent 'free-loading' off Australia and the US.
In its current form, it does not have interoperability with the ADF, nor US or UK.
Time for the Kiwis to start pulling their weight. When you look at the navy and airforce, it gets even worse.
I will be covering the Navy and Air Force.
@@Strategy_AnalysisI look forward to viewing it. As a former NZDF serviceman; please don't pull any punches.
Is this the Salvation Army ?
The current NZ Minister of Defence is tainted so most would doubt much can be achieved.The first objective for the Army Section of the NZDF is recruitment, training and retention. The Covid babysitting sessions of people in hotels caused some to disengage from their military service. There is a discussion about having an NZDF 'marine' section, probably initially from the army as a more watery environment unit to work alongside the navy. Generally nearing the top of the NZDF shopping list is to replace the jet transport 757s. As the 757s are multi-used for politician transport etc, it has been suggested the NZ airforce get a 737 business jet for the brass/ politicians(with media & entourage) and separate transport jets (Airbus freight spec with heavy duty landing gear?) Even if the NZDF did get M777 155mm, it would also require Chinook or Merlin? helicopters to carry them in one piece. Be interesting to see if a M777 can be disassembled and field reassembled for a NZDF NH-90s to carry artillery in parts, to an isolated firebase etc. Bring in 105mm initially to suppress the area then larger and longer arty. The younger NZ politicians in the post-corporal punishment era (I have read some Aussie schools still have corporal punishment) mostly never had to contemplate the deterrent effect of straps on teachers' desks or knowing teachers kept canes in staffroom cupboards and used both educational tools on students, to have a good understanding of the 'deterrent effect'.
New Zealand Army? What army? NZ airforce? What airforce??
As an Australian I wouldn't grumble if we paid for this , and I'm not a militarist
New Zealand won't be able to upgrade very many units they should buy refurbished LAV-300 and buy new wheeled 155mm SPG, NSAMS, SHORADS, MANPADS, and anti-drone systems.
Bring back the 77sets and the battle bouler helmets
Australia doesn't have Midium to Long range Anti air systems at the moment
i think australia put in an order for amraam based system recently.
Australia put lots of orders on but way Australian economy production of nothing is going soon Australia won't have finance to percuse any of these systems @@badgerattoadhall
NZ Airforce please
I agree with all your updates to our kit like the boxer and self propelled 155 mm guns. We should donate our 105mm guns and LAV 3s to Ukraine. We are no good to anyone if we don't have the weaponry and the skills to effectively use them. We should develop our own drones too. We already have that expertise.
155mm wheeled SPGs won't be too useful if you're island hopping across the Pacific. Have you ever wondered why the US put the latest variant of the 105 into service only a decade ago? And took them to both Iraq and Afghanistan?
This armored brigade would be good also the NZDF should invest into a Air Cavalry which includes 15 attack helicopters and a 10 medium unity helicopters (NH90s) They could support the armored infantry and light infantry and bring in and bring out wounded, support etc.. Also the NZDF could buy some second hand little birds which could be used by NZSAS. Anyway I'm pleased the DF is slowly growing back to it's former glory.
The A 109 the RNZAF operates are good for SAS/ STG CTG ops
So long as they had the VIP seats removed an Self preservation added...
Rocket pods
Door Guns
M 60 or Mg 42?
Or better still
M 134 mini gun
The group or 1NZSAS should at least have gunship support helo for task an purpose
An it should be allocated to their det as part of their integrated assets that are essential for their missions
Maybe a slight overkill if anything
But
Never know it could be needed for Counter Terrorism
New Zealand should be spending 4% on military budget. Just like Australia, Canada and the UK.
relying on the Americans is looking less and less like a foolproof plan.
2% Navy
1% Airforce
1% Army.
The thing is, we don't have a big GDP like they do.
@@ketimarsh-solomon6679
CANZUK
7m sq miles land
7 trillionUSD GDP
125m people
260,00 active duty military
120 billionUSD military budget
NZ is definitely due for a big upgrade!
What direction do you think the South African National Defence force should go? Given funding limitations, regional commitments, and desires of the 2015 defence review?
Interesting question. I'll need to think about that. South Africa certainly a significant factor.
Great report! So NZ is going to provide a motorised battalion group to an Australian yet to be announced motorised brigade? Does this mean the this motorised brigade is going to be a less than full strength brigade? Is this why 5 & 7 RAR are being re- amalgamated again?
And could NZ really justify dumping their LAV 6’s and Bushmasters to join Australia in re-equipping with Boxers to fight a near peer opponent like the PLA, when that is not likely to happen without destroying the Australian economy?
Remember the only thing bolstering Australia’s coffers is exporting iron ore to China
With the US looking very unstable after 2024 & the rest of the democratic world looking very shaky, would Australia & NZ really take on the PLA?
I’m not trying to be a smart arse, just putting a different perspective on things.
An alternative is NZ keeps their LAV’s & Bushmasters (& 105’s) and cross trains on our gear & if in the unlikely scenario that we get into a fight with China, then we could provide them the gear. And if ever we need a light portable battalion that can operate in rugged mountain terrain, the we could borrow their 105’s etc 😉
Cheers
Thanks. Yes, looks like the Kiwi BN Group is to augment 7 BDE in Brisbane. Defence has acknowledged they can't field all the INF BNs they would like.
@@Strategy_Analysis no worries so two battalions short across the division - truely back to the eighties! Thx mate!
NZ is back to light infantry with a lot of Lavs parked up. NZ to small to be fully motorised as means we lose infantry skills
@@philm6722 good point & we in Australia will be more likely be fighting in an island campaign rather than some big mainland peer to peer battle in some coalition. I think the Kiwi tax payers would start getting really annoyed if the army started buying the heavier equipment mentioned in the video.
One day soon Australian tax payers will start getting really pissed off if working people keep living in tents, going without services and struggling to feed themselves or their families, whilst the government (of whichever party) keeps spending money on “war stuff” without really thinking about it first!
It’s nice to have all the toys but no good if you can’t man them or use them due to budget restraints.
Cheers
Need to sort out the years of neglect the bases have suffered.
New houses needed and get the current ones warmer
An often over-looked issue. Base support. Good point (I don't know it myself but no reason not to believe you).
Look at what the Aussies have in regards to defence housing. Citizens can buy brand new houses, and the defence force enters a contract with the owners to say a 10 year lease. All maintenance and expenses is covered by the defence force, and the owners get the money from the rental payments from ADF staff. NZDF could do the same thing, and you'd have extra housing stock freed up for the public or the NZDF after the 10 year lease is finished.
For something to do, you could always go and get fesh and cheps................
The first duty of a government is to protect its citizens. The management of our military by successive governments has clearly been a disaster, the scale of which which will only be apparent when we suddenly find that we really need a military capability but don't have one to speak of. Looking at the way the world is heading in recent times with hot wars, climate change and threats of more conflicts between major players, Helen Clark's past lala land legacy peacekeeping approach certainly seems very high risk and neglectful of the lessons of history !!! Our airforce and navy couldn't stop much more than a few fishing boats and the 100+ LAVs bought for low intensity peace keeping and domestic populace control have long been viewed as largely a waste of money. If we then want to depend on alliances, what really do we contribute to make it worthwhile for our likely allies to feel they need to help us???
Business as usual, Peeling Potatoes and doing the dishes whilst the Allies do all the heavy lifting.
I joined the NZDF Army in 1992 and got out in 2000 rejoined 06-08 and it’s turned to utter 💩 can’t yell at soldiers because you might hurt their feelings 😂 a critical shortage of manpower and zero direction which is the fault of the Top Brass nobody on courses is allowed to be failed and I have personally seen this at the school of Combat our Army is in a dire shit shape 😂
I gave up on supporting Aus rugby years ago. Those All Blacks were too much. Fortunately we had Ausie rules and league. But I was prepared to invaded.
Ha. Fair enough.
New zealand needs a bigger army , say of around 8000.
Well the NZDF page should stop trying to recruit lesbians with their ad campaign.. and they make the look army look a bit pathetic on their YT channel.
All NZ needs to do is challenge their opponent to who can put up scaffolding the fastest, they will be invincible.
I'm an ex 7 WNHB Infantryman from the Lange and Clarke Government eras, now merged as 5/7. Blame Helen Clarks Government for the removal of our strike wing and more importantly refusing allowing the arty boys to get FH70 155's as the were considered (offensive) weapons and why would we ever be an offensive? Same argument for not allowing the replacement of the A4's for F16s which the previous National Government has aurhorised. Thank heavens the LAV's had started to already arrive otherwise they would probably have been binned to and would still be in a small fleet of Vietnam era M113's. Seeing that existing orbat how depressing....we should have at least 9 infantry battalions but then the biggest challenge now, beyond budget, as back then how do you convince people to serve...not something a lot of western youth are prepared to do these days. Great brief though and food for thought as always, especially as history seems to repeating itself and it feels like the 1930s, from a strategic sense, all over again . To be honest though if anyone has the reach to get this far (i.e. China) we would be fighting as an insurgent force as all our main bases can be overrun within 2 hours of a land force making a landing and even less if they para in. The great wisdom of defence reviews, lets consolidate everything into a triangle within 30km of a long gently shelving hard sand beach and 50km of each other....nup we need to learn from what we have been fighting against since 2001, equip and train accordingly. When China gets numerical parity with the US on the blue then its going to be all on and all the US talk will be just that as they don't have the stomach for the casualties they (AUS and us) will take, nor will they have to physical capability to deliver what has been promised.
What does 5/7 mean?
@@damionkeeling3103 5/7 is in the current orbat. It's an infantry battalion made up of a merger of 2 territorial infantry battalions in the early 90s. Originally we were 7 Wellington Hawkes Bay with Company HQs and recruitment zones in Wairoa/Gisborne (Alpha) Petone Wgtn (Bravo) Waipukurau (Charlie) Carterton (Delta) Trentham (Support] and Napier (Admin and HQ) 5 Battalion was Wellington West Coast Taranaki my Father's old unit. Linton through to New Plymouth. Now both units are merged into one with reduced manning levels. I don't know where all the Company's are based except one that is here in Whanganui where I currently live.
God luck with it all NZ.
To say NZ will never be invaded is a shallow thought. If I was going to invade Australia I’d do so via NZ. It has no viable military capability and can provide resources for a greater invading force on Australia.
nz needs to do away with army navy and airforce units and go to more of a us marines model... 1 command structure and more money spent on equipment where it is needed... we wont do that due to command structures not wanting to give up their @history@ rather than adopt what is best for us going forward.
6:50 😂😂😂 that’s not a Battalion 😂😂😂 a battalion is 800-1000 pers strong 🔥
You can discuss platform upgrades/replacements and Infantry doctrine till the cows come home. The defence of NZ's interests has much bigger issues at immediate hand. Right now we have An inf Bde structure that cannot field one inf Battalion. Multiple Ships that cannot go to sea due to lack of key manpower. Aircraft that cannot fly. We currently have a Defence Force that has become mired in wokeness and diversity, a senior leadership that lost their testicles over Covid, Horrendously bloated senior officer numbers. Not to mention a catastrophic reduction in actual capability over the past few years. All backed up by 30 years of inadequate funding for military pay/operational costs/capital purchases/infrastructure maintenance. We are talking a generation to get back to the 1970's and our actual capability level of that era. First step is to get bi partisan buy in to a long term decent funding model. Since the late 1980's all I heard at every budget round from the chief Financial Officer and his minions was "we need to find a 6%/10%/5%/15% cut across the board. If we have to go on Offensive operations, now would be the worst time in 30 years to have to go.
MONEY!!!!
The appetite for working with the Australians *closely* after the experience of working with them in East Timor and Afghanistan is likely to be low for a decade or more: the Australians simply are not to be relied upon for any professionalism. The war crimes records and the extent to which their military tried to avoid responsibility speak to a pervasive mindset amongst the Australian military that is just too dangerous for NZ forces to be around. It's the major reason why the NZ forces suddenyl refused to work with the Australians in Afghanistan: no desire to be caught up in their antics, war crimes, and culture of denial. It would be a major mistae to get closer to the Aussies until they sort their shite out.
The odd thing about all that is that the NZ Army actually has the greater amount of combat and deployment experience institutionally. It was constantly deploying during the 80's and 90's and into the 2000's until today. Australia had very few deployments or actual experience post-Vietnam until East Timor.
Keep kidding yourself
@@innocentbystander8038 Go on - try responding to some of the points made, rather than just waving your hands in the air.
What a load of BS. I've served in both the NZ and Australian army. What you claim is total rubbish. The Australian army is every bit as professional as NZ. The training in Australia is far far better, both in terms of realism, ammunition allocation and honest after action reviews. All of which were severly lacking during my time in NZ.
@@damolux3388 If only the Australians could resist committing war crimes. And trying to cover them up afterwards. And then still denying it even after it's been proven.
I did like the part where you prattled on about their training at length and completely ignored the points I made about actual experience and deployments. But hey, gotta cling to what you can when you're only recent deployments are marred by multiple incidents of war crimes, eh?
Hey champ, as a veteran of Somalia with 1 RAR I don't recall seeing any NZDF there. Thinking also, I don't recall hearing of you being in Rwanda.
If you're referring to NZDF being involved in Peace Keeping Missions, well the ADF has been involved in those too, and I wouldn't call it combat. Please enlighten me of the greater amount of combat and deployment experience the NZDF has over the ADF, and tell me about all this constantly deploying you speak of.
I mostly enjoyed my time on EX with my NZ counterparts and my son, who is now serving in the RAR, also has spoken highly of them during EX's such as Talisman Sabre You're talking out of your arse and probably have zero experience in the NZDF.
Why has New Zealand got involved with imperial powers wars abroad, like Iraq and Afghanistan?
So not to freeload on the rest of the Anglosphere.
I like the analysis here! Can I ask, what's the legend for the colour scheme on the ORBAT slide? I've only ever seen ORBATs in either blue or red, so I'd love to learn more! Cheers mate!
Chinese fought like shit in Somalia. The quality of Chinese kit is difficult to gage, they have not sold much to other countries so no independent views. But most of the kit appears to be Russian Soviet era clones, after China ordered a whole bunch of Su-35s and canceled the order after only 2 were delivered and used for cloning. Russia got tough and stopped China from exporting clones and their industry has gone to shit as a result.
I wonder how many hobbits where killed on that range 😜
Questionable how any of this will function, if Australia were operating nuclear powered submarines. As the NZ policy is to not allow any nuclear vessels into the country. That would curtail any operational deployment of Australian submarines in NZ waters and thereby leave any deployed naval units without that screen.
Basically the kiwi government doesn't want a military, they want a few blokes in uniform to act as on call workforce for natural disasters and to strut around a few Pacific island nations. Their capability, whats left of it, is being eroded year by year. All the politicians want is to get elected and for that nice cushy retirement job at the UN.
They would rather spend their $ on BS window dressing some social policy than have aircraft capable of protecting their few transport aircraft.
NZ has an army?
To be fair they need something to fight against the kea menace
@@S.Fortunato The birds or the junior scouts?
Ahh no
😂😂😂😂😂I was just thinking that.
Can’t outsource your entire military to Australia
New Zealand still has an Army? I thought Labour disbanded it?
Yeah nah Aussies wouldn’t be cool with that one bit
NZ should just merge with the Australian DF but at least have a NZ army regiment and give a couple of navy ships NZ names to retain some identity. We could also provide fighter and helicopter pilots to the Australian Air Force and pay for their training. In Vietnam NZ provided helicopter pilots to fly Australian Iroquois.
who pay's though
@@shanehansen3705 NZ is too small and doesn't have enough $$$ to retain a viable defence force. They're better off merging with Australia. They can make a valuable contribution to Australia. Even though our defence force is small our troops are well trained and our SAS are world class.
@@wellingtonian2009 NO NO and NO many poorer countries have viable defense forces they just don't try to fill them up with top tier equipment there are other options whilst still fielding up to date hardware but there is no way the Aust taxpayer should contribute a cent to NZ's defense forces on any ongoing basis
@@shanehansen3705 I'm not saying Australia should pay for it. NZDF could just be part of the ADF or a joint ANZAC force. NZ can still pay their wages, training and equipment. The problem is our defence force is small.
There should be much greater coordination with not just Australia, but also the UK and Canada.
CANZUK should not only be interoperable at every level, but interchangeable. ie it should not matter which country is deploying forces, they can work together effectively.
NZDF has not been involved in an actual combat operation since 1972. Its lack of real experience is the real problem.
The NZSAS has experience but they are less than 1% of the Army, the rest of the Army has deployed on 'peacekeeping' and Civil Aid type missions but not on combat operations.
The Airforce has no combat capability it is basically a logistics/ freight company that can also do unarmed coastguard duties.
The Navy is not really a Navy.
If the NZ Army deployed on actual combat operations, even with the best equipment available it would be in for a very rude awakening, only then would changes to the culture such as the 'peacekeeping mentality' which NZDF has been crippled by and stuck in since the early 90's be made, although it would unfortunately take quite a few body bags and coffins before the NZDF pulled its head out of its rear end.
Also, the NZ Army constantly reinforces the belief of its member that they are such highly trained soldiers and some of the best in the business, and admired and respected around the world for 'punching above their weight'... which is not true at all, but they are told that and they believe it to be true.
Simple fact is the NZDF despite 20 years in afghanistan has no experience of actual combat operations, and has not been involved in one for over half a century.