The Trump administration in the United States is cutting generals, while increasing spending to make its military more lethal. Should the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) do the same?

Critics say the NZDF is top heavy and combat light. "We could not put and sustain a battalion in the field, yet we have a huge number of senior officers," said a military veteran who is close to those still in the ranks.

RNZ has agreed not to name the veteran.

But the defence force has defended its composition.

"The NZDF is constantly reviewing its staffing and personnel, as it seeks to ensure it is ready and able to deploy where government requests the defence force to do so," it said.

Military forces in NZ's Five Eyes partners are grappling with structural change, amid huge rises in spending linked to unprecedented advances in military technology - killer drones, hypersonic missiles, nuclear upgrades - and an increasingly volatile security environment, especially in the Indo-Pacific.

There is no sign of an appetite for that in New Zealand.

Allies reviewing defence

In Washington, President Donald Trump's Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth is sacking 10-20 percent of generals and top officers, in what he claims is the most significant review of military leadership since the 1980s.

He has accused the Pentagon of being bloated.

"There is an inverse relationship between the size of staffs and victory on the battlefield," he stated at his confirmation hearing.

"We do not need more bureaucracy at the top. We need more warfighters empowered at the bottom. So, it is going to be my job… to identify those places where fat can be cut, so it can go toward lethality."

At the same time, he has suggested he was on course for the first-ever trillion-dollar (US) defence budget.

The UK has a defence review going on covering all personnel roles. Australia just completed its review.

Their forces have faced similar recent criticism that they are top heavy. They are also receiving big funding boosts, while other government funding priorities are frozen or going backwards.

But defence headquarters in Wellington had rejected comparisons.

"It is difficult to draw comparisons across partner militaries because of the different characteristics of each... The requirements of each military are different," it told RNZ.

"The NZDF does not conduct benchmarking against other militaries to compare the number of officers to enlisted personnel."

It reviewed its personnel "constantly", guided by what outputs the government wanted, it added.

More lethal, but still hollow

The government has made clear that it wants defence to be more lethal, more combat-ready and have more strike power.

But NZDF's personnel were hollowed out during the Covid pandemic, with 35 percent staff churn that "significantly depleted" its skill, experience and "trained state".

The inquiry into the sinking of the $100 million Manawanui survey ship found fault with untrained crew as well as inadequate leadership.

"Hollowness was raised by a number of witnesses in relation to personnel gaps throughout the organisation," said the inquiry.

"It is expected to take several years to regenerate some capabilities," NZDF said a year ago.

Those years will overlap the period when the NZDF takes receipt of masses of new weaponry under the new $13 billion defence capability plan (DCP).

The previous government suggested once the DCP was done, the defence force's structure would be looked at.

The response of the militaries of some of the Five Eyes partners to the same pressures was to look at structures.

Hegseth has nicknamed his latest cuts "less [sic] generals, more GIs". The shake-up will shutter some commands, while retaining the priority of combating China.

---

READ MORE

• Minister Judith Collins says no allies have put pressure on government to up defence spending
• Budget 2025: Over $2b for naval helicopters, extra $957m for defence
• New Zealand Air Force to set up space squadron as it grows in importance
• Professor urges NZ defence boost amid China’s increased Pacific presence

---

In the UK, consternation greeted the military's own assessments of a crisis in lower ranks, which are under half the size they were in 1990. The head of defence warned MPs last month that "for every 100 soldiers that are recruited, 130 leave".

The Times headlined a March report: "Army officers to quit as 'bloated' top ranks block promotion".

"The shrinking armed forces are awash with expensive senior officers" and "the British Army has more senior officers than heavy artillery [245 v 89 big guns]", media reports said.

The UK began a review in mid-2024.

In Australia, ABC ran a similar headline - "Growing number of senior officers in 'top-heavy' Australian Defence Force despite falling overall personnel numbers" - 18 months ago. It said the hollowing out had created a shortfall "greatest across the ADF's middle ranks".

Some of the commentary in Canada has been similar, while its problems of poor housing and conditions undermining the retention of soldiers mirror similar issues in New Zealand.

The NZDF told the incoming government 18 months ago that troops were "energised by the new equipment" coming, but "wary of burn-out as we introduce this equipment into service whilst maintaining current outputs with a reduced workforce".

"Outputs" were a feature of NZDF statements to RNZ.

"Government-directed outputs guide the staffing and personnel requirements" - and it rejected comparisons across ranks: "There is no consistent standard for what is considered and reported on as an 'officer'."

But several critics, including former officers, told RNZ the military could not deliver key outputs.

Sustaining combat ranks in the field, or having peacekeepers in Ukraine, were beyond it, they said, with upper ranks logjammed, preventing talented people from getting promoted.

"We lack mass, we lack lethality, we lack sustainability, and then we have massive recruitment, retention, morale, and mental health problems. It is a disaster. How many defence chiefs have been sacked? None," Simon Ewing-Jarvie, who was an army officer for a quarter of a century, wrote in a blog a year ago.

The NZDF did not dispute what informed sources told RNZ - that it had about 10 brigadiers but at most one brigade, and many more wing commanders than it had aircraft.

'Hard to escape' for small armies

While the NZDF does not do international benchmarking, others do.

Ewing-Jarvie tried this two years ago using NZDF data, to arrive at a ratio of about 400 enlisted personnel to one senior officer (some armies call these 'general or flag officers'). Canada appeared similar, while by contrast the US has been put at 1500 to one and the UK 1200 to one, by analysts elsewhere.

Australia has been put at a top-heavy 260 to one, though Australian analyst of defence economics Todd Newett, who has scrutinised the statistics, estimated its ratios were about the same as New Zealand.

Newett told RNZ the New Zealand and Australian militaries had a lot of officers for their size - probably too many - but on the other hand they lacked the economies of scale that large militaries had.

"So if you want a small military that still has a broad variety of capabilities, this is, you know, kind of hard to escape."

Australia had three combat brigades (3000-5000) plus a few support brigades, and 60 full-time brigadiers. But many of them worked on acquisitions or projects or liaison, not in command, said Newett.

International liaison with other militaries was a key driver. Low ranking officers struggled to get access higher up, various analysis said.

For instance, the Ukraine "coalition of the willing" talks in Europe involve brigadiers, and New Zealand has a brigadier involved - although she is a lawyer, rather than having military operations experience.

Newett added another bonus of having lots of highly trained officers was it might be quicker to bulk up if war broke out.

Ready and willing

The NZDF has various workforce recruitment and retention strategies to try to fill out its lower ranks.

So far, they are showing little sign of working, with its chin barely above water on 2024's numbers, although turnover has plummeted from more than 30 percent to 7.5 percent as the economy struggles.

The force's own self-assessment to RNZ was that it was adaptable. It told MPs in December it would have to cut a "raft" of things but all "missions" would go ahead.

"The NZDF maintains military capabilities at various readiness states and can reconfigure those forces to respond to multiple events or activities within specific response times," its spokesperson said.

"We also maintain interoperability with military partners which means we can provide personnel and assets to a larger multinational response, and equally, they may provide personnel and assets to activities here in New Zealand or in our Pacific region."

Five Eyes force make-ups -

Note: Data varies so comparing ratios is unreliable

New Zealand

Senior officers make up 12 percent of regular force

Junior officers are 13 percent

Warrant officers and senior NCOs are 25 percent

Jnr NCOs and other ranks are 50 percent

Source

US

Officers - 17 percent

Enlisted - 83 percent

Source

Australia

Senior officers - 11 percent

Junior officers - 18 percent

Warrant and senior NCOs - 17 percent

Jnr NCOs and other ranks - 53 percent

Source

UK

Officers - 19 percent

'Men and women' - 81 percent

Canada

Government figures show 145 very senior officers in a force of 63,000, but this is not comparable to the data above for other countries

Source