So, I have had some time to think about the Defence Capability Plan (DCP) 2025 and whilst in general I agree with it and happy with it. I also call it a start agreeing with the terms used by the Judith Collins “This is the floor not the ceiling” and “out of the intensive care unit and into the ward” A lot more needs to be done.

The “on again off again” and “start stop” of defence projects (not just defence but any project) just makes things more expensive and must stop. There is no overall arching strategic plan going forward that both parties totally agree on. This needs to be addressed else we will continue to have this continuous flip flop of on, off on again defence projects.

The way I currently see it, it is an updated continuation from DCP 2019, which in reality it is, they are all that from their previous plan, but the 12 billion to be spent to get us to 2% of GPD, is definitely the remainder of the previous John Key’s lead Nation Government’s defence spend of 20 billion in 15 years.

The difference between the two DCP’s is the current is focused on strike capability for land, sea, and air. Finally getting medium to long range anti-ship missiles for the navy, arming the P-8a Poseidon’s and talk of land-based missiles as well.

Personally, this has taken too long to decide that it is a capability short-fall, and we need this to actually defend ourselves. Those in the military talk forums including myself have been saying this for years. Personally, they need to fast track the “Naval Strike Missile” (NSM) for the current frigates and get them installed and integrated with the CMS330 and then tested asap.

This will finally give the navy stand off strike capability and some teeth which it currently does not have.  Currently the navy uses the Penguin ASM which is a short-range missile that is launched from the Seasprite helo. This is okay against pirates and lightly armed vessels, but the helo would not be able to get close enough to any seriously arm vessel with decent anti-air capabilities.

The other main talk is drones, both strike and surveillance drones including air and sea-based drones. Now for the strike drones they have said there will always be a human in the loop. This all comes from the lessons learnt in war between Russia and Ukraine.

So all this talk of new gear is all very well and good, but the NZDF has had attrition problems in the past and still does. This needs to be sorted at the same time and as soon as possible.

Who going to attack us, well it is not always who is going to attack little old New Zealand but it is about protecting what we have, our way of life, help our friends in need whether that is with force or humanitarian aid. If you like the way you live with all your stuff you have 90% of it is imported via trade and we need to protect that by protecting our trade lines that includes our fuel and all that that cheap Chinese junk you buy off Temu.

READ MORE

• Multi-billion dollar Defence plan unveiled
• Defence Force spend-up: Who is it meant to protect us against, and other questions
• $12 billion on defence? I'm good with that
• New Zealand navy receives a boost under 2025 Defence Capability Plan

Not many people know this but if Australia is attacked it is the one tie New Zealand can declare war on the attacker without going to parliament outside of New Zealand being attack. We also have to show a strong force in the pacific as we protect Rarotonga, Tokelau, Cook Islands etc. not just as in defence but also the humanitarian side.

People also hate it when I say this, but it really must be said over and over, the only thing the government technically must pay for, and I mean, must, is defence. They don’t have to cover health & education, housing and or any social programs like they do as all this could be privatized, but defence cannot. However, to have a healthy growing society it just makes sense too. People tend to forget that just under half the GDP budget (something like 45%) is health, education and social support and that doesn’t include things like housing. Currently the defence budget is 1.1 - 1.3 % of GDP and the current government wants to lift it to 2 % over the next 8 years.

What is in the plan?

Increased strike capability.

What does this mean, well to our non-military informed readers; it is all very well that we can detect a missile coming to hit our ship, and even possibly destroy that missile. But we have no way of hitting back at the ship firing the missile unless we get a lot closer, which gives the hostile contact multiple times that can fire at us.  The more times they can do that the more of a chance our ship gets hit before we can even fire back due to the fact we are out of range.

Giving increased strike capability means we have a chance of hitting the hostile before they hit us, it is that simple. Currently we (the NZDF) cannot do this) This means anti-ship missiles with greater range and accuracy. This may also cover sea land and air-based systems, meaning better missile systems on the frigates, arming the P-8a’s Poseidon’s and possibly getting land-based missile systems.

Now all this said, both the current and successive governments must follow through with this plan and that has always been a crux of the matter. However, in general the current opposition agrees with the plan in principle.

From the DCP

Enhanced strike capabilities

What it is: The NZDF will improve its combat capability by enhancing its strike capabilities, particularly in the maritime domain and at longer range. Options include arming existing air and maritime platforms with missiles, such as the P-8A Poseidon fleet and the Anzac frigates or exploring other option, including land-based strike.

Why it is important: Strike capabilities provide a deterrent against vessels threatening New Zealand’s territory or NZDF units deployed on operations. To enhance interoperability, Defence will explore acquiring the same capabilities as Australia or partners, who are enhancing their capabilities in this area.

Australia currently use ESSM and Harpoon, and soon they will shift to the Naval Strike Missile and retire the aging Harpoon missile. New Zealand uses CAMM and the short-range Penguin missile launched from the Sea Sprite. Four different systems. It would make sense to use the same. NSM and ESSM, however I would keep the Penguin ASM for the replacement helos as they have only just been re-engined and will give that extra capability for another 20 years or so.

Drones: sea, land and air, however, are they strike drones or just surveillance drones. Well, the main focus is surveillance, but they are also open to the strike capabilities of a drone as part of the overall “Enhanced strike capabilities” criteria. Of course there is the thought of AI, however the MoD, NZDF have stated that there will always be a human in the loop of a strike drone especially with the go, no go situation.

The up arming of the NZDF artillery is an other capability that needs looked at, again from replacing the 105’s with the larger 155’s adding the said strike drones, as well as talk of exploring the idea of land-based strike missiles systems. This also includes the upgrading of our current javelin missiles to the latest version.

Replacement of the Maritime Helicopters

The SH-2G(i) helos are an aging platform are fast approaching the end of their life. Whilst the obvious choice would be the MH-60R Sea Hawk (a maritime version of the Black Hawk) Due to Australia having this platform therefore we can tap into their experience, supply lines, and cross services and country training.

But there are a few this that have been thrown into the works in today geopolitical world. That huge spanner is Trump and I don’t need to say any more on that.

That being said there are other options:

• The AgustaWestland AW159 Wildcat.
• The NHI NFH-90 (Maritime version of the NH-90).
• AgustaWestland AW101.
• MH-60R Sea Hawk.

Although there were some corruption claims with the South Korean WildCat deal;

• https://sites.tufts.edu/corruptarmsdeals/south-koreas-aw-159-helicopters/
• https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/agusta-westland-vvip-chopper-scam-all-about-indias-biggest-defence-scam-after-bofors-what-sc-said-about-it/amp_articleshow/108591961.cms

There are obviously other options like the Eurocopter EC725 etc. However, my thought process here is also thinking of when we replace HMNZS Canterbury with a say a proper LPD or small LHD that requires multiple helo’s we need a helo that can do ASW, Anti-Ship, Search & Rescue, Troop Transport into a hot zone and even special/black ops, as well as the general utility work that a naval helo does in naval operations.

The replacement of the B757’s I am unsure, but Airbus, Boeing, Embraer all have great aircraft that can fulfil the role.  But at least get three maybe even four air frames.

One or two area’s NZ is short on is air to air refuelling and early warning we should invest in a couple of tankers like the Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) which can be configured for either transport of troops and gear or as a tanker if you have 4 air frames at least one or two can be flying in either mode or configuration. Again, Australia operates this aircraft.

The early warning again what the Australians use the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail but there are again other options for this from Europe. People will ask why we would need this capability when we have the P-8a. Well, the P-8 is mainly anti-submarine and designed to hunt and kill submarines. The E-7 on the other hand is early warning gives a picture of surface and air contacts which the P-8a can’t really do on the same level. If you want surveillance that has long range detection this is it.

I still believe we need a larger transport aircraft and as we missed out on the few white tails C-17 III Globe Masters there are a couple of options for this as well like the Airbus A400m and whilst I was originally against the idea due to it was still being developed and had issues like every aircraft have during development, it is now starting prove it’s worth over the European space. The other option here is the Kawaski C-2.

Finally, we need to get a couple of extra P-8a’s, 4 was never enough, even Defence Minister Ron Mark at the time wanted at least 5 but the treasury said no and here we are again a smaller force of four air frames and trying to cover the same thing six did..