New Zealand’s first real counter-drone purchase is a jammer, not a shield, and the Cabinet paper approving it says so plainly. NZDF has signed off a roughly $2 million deal for Danish firm MyDefence’s jammer suite, the same system Australia uses. Officials concede it “would cope with the most likely drone threat short term, but not give full protection” against the drones seen over Ukraine and the Middle East. It ranked fourth strongest of five options, the most capable option was ruled out, and even this modest kit needs legislative amendment before NZDF has clear legal authority to use it. All of this lands while global counter-drone spending has hit almost $100 billion in nine months.
BusinessDesk puts NZDF’s outlay at $1.9 million, with the system’s name and price redacted from the public release. MyDefence has been less shy, publicising the New Zealand win on its own website.
A jammer bought with eyes open
Credit where it is due. The paper does not oversell. It describes the purchase as a foundation for later systems that physically destroy drones, and says it gives sufficient protection for army and air force personnel and aircraft deployed overseas. Navy protection comes later. That is honest procurement, and honesty is rarer in defence than it should be.
The weaker point is the legal fog. One section says the system is not intended for use within New Zealand except for national security objectives, while another discusses domestic deployment. If Cabinet cannot settle where a $2 million jammer may be switched on, it is worth asking how long the bigger questions will take.
Proven kit now, local kit later
Buying off the shelf is the right call here. The Cabinet paper concluded that “no domestic manufacturer currently meets” NZDF’s immediate needs, while noting local companies are developing promising technologies. NZDF heard pitches from 46 companies, 17 of which already have New Zealand facilities. That is a bigger domestic base than most people would guess.
The Ministry of Defence’s own March assessment backs the caution. It describes the uncrewed sector as “growing fast” but counter-drone technology as “less developed”, with only a small number of companies producing one or two solutions. That line had already appeared in the 2025 version of the statement. A year on, nothing had changed.
The money does not match the speeches
This is where the story turns. The March statement sets an indicative band of up to $50 million for counter-drone systems and $100 million to $300 million for long-range remotely piloted aircraft. In July, Defence Minister Chris Penk flagged an RFI for up to $300 million in one-way strike drones, saying the government was “especially interested in supporting local innovation, skills and industrial capability.”
Now look at what has actually been spent. Total Defence Science and Technology expenditure in 2024-25 was $11.1 million, of which drone-related R&D was just under $1 million. The new Defence Technology Accelerator, set up in August, runs on eight staff, about $1 million a year for co-development and $17 million over four years, with three of its four phases still needing funding.
In May, retired major general John Howard said procurement was “stuck in an old, slow approach to fast-moving new tech.” Philip Solaris of drone maker Obsidian Systems made the sharper point that the issue is less how much is spent than how wisely. Both can be true. A minimum viable accelerator is prudent for a pilot. It is not an industrial strategy.
Pedigree is the export product
The genuinely smart part of the plan is the idea of battlefield pedigree. Defence buyers want combat-proven kit, which is exactly why NZDF just bought Danish. If NZDF trials local prototypes and gives firms real military input, those companies gain the credential that opens doors in Canberra, London and the Gulf. That is the Going for Growth logic, and it is sound.
But pedigree takes test ranges, contracts and time, and the threat is not waiting. Drone warfare has rewritten itself several times since Ukraine began. A procurement system that needs a law change to use a jammer risks validating local firms just as their technology becomes yesterday’s answer.
What business should watch
For the 17 firms with local facilities, and the advanced manufacturers circling the strike drone RFI, the signal is mixed but real. Watch three things: whether the Accelerator’s later phases get funded in Budget 2027, whether the strike and maritime drone programmes favour local suppliers in practice rather than in press releases, and how fast the counter-drone legislation moves. The jammer is a reasonable first step. The test is whether Wellington takes the second one before the market moves on without it.
Sources
- RNZ: New Zealand takes stepping stone to shooting down drones (2026-10-23)
- BusinessDesk: NZDF’s initial counter-drone system will not provide full protection (2026-10-20)
- MyDefence: MyDefence counter-drone systems selected by New Zealand Defence Force
- Defence.govt.nz: Strategic Industrial Base Statement: Uncrewed Systems and Uncrewed Counter Systems (2026-03-20)
- Defence.govt.nz: Uncrewed Systems & Uncrewed Counter Systems, Industrial Base Statement (2025)
- 1News: Govt eyes long-range strike drones, seeks Kiwi-made solutions (2026-07-29)
- NZDF OIA response: Defence Science and Technology Expenditure and Drone Research (2026-03-02)
- RNZ: Is New Zealand falling behind in the drone arms race? (2026-05-21)
Join the discussion
Add useful context, ask a good question, or challenge an idea — keep it specific and respectful.