It's years now since there was anything newsworthy in the budget; with decisions revolving around iterations of white papers and lengthy evaluation and purchasing periods which reality says can't be made to conveniently come to fruition of budget night.
The little that's been printed are broad statements about the program and capital costs of project already fairly well understood, notification that expenditure is proceeding as planned and forecasts showing that the ramping upvof Defence expenditure towards the promised 2% of GDP is continuing as major projects start to accelerate.
As usual, such "analysis" as I've read questions things like whether the cost of sustainment for the F-35 will be a budget breaker *because* the cost of sustainment for the Supers and Growlers is big dollars - with no understanding whatever of what is already contained in teh F-35 program cost.
Short answer is a question. Even if there was something new would you expect any sensible analysis of the Defence budget in the general press at all, much less 12 hours after the budget is released?
I don't
oldsig
Last edited:
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
The current witch hunt going on for both the SASR and SAS of sickens me. Stuff in NZ has had an axe to grind and books to sell for months now but now its gaining traction the civilian sides of the ADF and NZDF respectively. I read this article which sums it up perfectly and actually p####s me off more.
Former SAS Trooper Responds
Former SAS Trooper Responds
Takao
The Bunker Group
Holding ADF personnel to account? Absolutely an essential thing. Read that letter again. See the inferences about ignoring laws if ordered to? See the inference about covering up crimes? See the bleating as opposed to the acknowledgement that, for good or bad, allegations have been made and they need to be resolved. See anything in the news recently about fascist imagery?
The ADF is one of the most trustworthy organisations in Australia. A little bit of sunlight on dark corners is a small price to pay. Wait - it's not a price - it's being a professional. The conventional force is investigated, why shouldn't the special force?
There was a comment on another thread that theorised a potential option for the NZGovt to eventually replace its Anzac frigates with a low base capability, a more 'constabulary' class of vessel.
I'm wondering what the reaction to this, if it was entertained, might be from the Aust Govt?
Surely, I presume there is some form of joint capability expectation that implies a standing base level capability?
I note that there will be a window when the RNZN will have NO frigate available, surely that must start conversations in Canberra, and elsewhere?
Does the NZGovt have any minimum capability obligation to maintain?
From NZ perspective, does Aust have any standards it must maintain per MOU?
One would imagine there must be some form of complementing capability match, considering both nations are so closely linked.
I don't recall these ever being referred to??
I'm wondering what the reaction to this, if it was entertained, might be from the Aust Govt?
Surely, I presume there is some form of joint capability expectation that implies a standing base level capability?
I note that there will be a window when the RNZN will have NO frigate available, surely that must start conversations in Canberra, and elsewhere?
Does the NZGovt have any minimum capability obligation to maintain?
From NZ perspective, does Aust have any standards it must maintain per MOU?
One would imagine there must be some form of complementing capability match, considering both nations are so closely linked.
I don't recall these ever being referred to??
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #467
As I understand it, the A-NZ and the A-US portions of the ANZUS treaty remain in effect, but the treaty does not mandate what force level or capability set the nations maintain or provide in the event there is an activation following an incident of some sort.
Had there been such provisions, then it is possible that NZ might not have disbanded, or been able to disband the RNZAF ACF, rundown the RNZN combatant force to just a pair of frigates, mothball Army MANPADS, and so on...
IIRC the ADF took the disbanding of the ACF particularly poorly at least in part due to elements being based in Australia which were providing a training capability to ADF assets. My memory of this is a little fuzzy, but I believe the ACF was being used as 'hostile air' so that RAN vessels could train in air defence and that the ADF was funding the RNZAF ACF detachment at least in part and possibly in whole. Once the ACF was axed, the ADF had to reallocate it's own assets and forces to provide that training capability.
One of the impressions that I have formed in the aftermath of this and other NZG defence decisions, is that the various AusGov's have come to the conclusion that while the presence and participation of Kiwi forces would be 'nice to have' it is nothing that Australia can or should rely upon and that any tasks or roles that the ADF would need filled for operations or a deployment need to be able to be provided by just Oz forces.
With that in mind, I do not see the ADF 'ceding' a specialist capability to the NZDF, as there would be too great a risk that at some future point in time, a sitting NZG could decide to delete the specialist capability, or refuse to employ it due to a difference in policy. One should remember the dust up which happened when it appeared in the news that Air NZ was doing chartered flights between Oz and Iraq moving ADF personnel...
Strongly agree.
In particular, I would not be relying on the NZDF as a substitute for an RAN AOR or any similar capability.
Regards,
Massive
Takao
The Bunker Group
Everything said above by @Massive and @Todjaegeris correct. In addition:
Not sure what you meant about standards; but there are two elements that ensure commonality of standards. There are Service - Service agreements and ABCANZ; the latter of which is focused on integration and interoperability. It leads efforts to ensure that ABCANZ nations have common standards in critical areas.
That is focused on gear though; not readiness.
A simple observation from very much the outside:
its astonishing that considering the near practical certainty that both NZDF & ADF will respond in concert to a defence incident effecting either nation, that the relationship has not matured to the extent of mandating capability expectations.
There really is nothing stopping NZ from fielding only a fleet of constabulary vessels is there?
The ADF really cannot rely on NZ for naval capability in the South Pacific, can it?
I get it that there is an argument (that I don't agree with) for ceding fast jet capability, but there is no actual obligation to the NZDF to operate a reasonable airlift either is there, they could field 2 Caribou to to move some of their stuff around and that'd be it.
Do you think that our relationship will evolve enough one day to to have a dovetailed capability plan?
(I'm very happy to be educated if my observations are incorrect or unfair).
its astonishing that considering the near practical certainty that both NZDF & ADF will respond in concert to a defence incident effecting either nation, that the relationship has not matured to the extent of mandating capability expectations.
There really is nothing stopping NZ from fielding only a fleet of constabulary vessels is there?
The ADF really cannot rely on NZ for naval capability in the South Pacific, can it?
I get it that there is an argument (that I don't agree with) for ceding fast jet capability, but there is no actual obligation to the NZDF to operate a reasonable airlift either is there, they could field 2 Caribou to to move some of their stuff around and that'd be it.
Do you think that our relationship will evolve enough one day to to have a dovetailed capability plan?
(I'm very happy to be educated if my observations are incorrect or unfair).
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #471
Current NZ law prevents a NZ gov't from completely disbanding Army, the RNZN or RNZAF, but IIRC there is no mandated force size, capability span, or kit. This means in theory the NZDF could be reduced to three people, one armed with a spork, another kitted out with a rubber ducky, and the third with an aerodynamically superior folded piece of paper...
Outside of that, the concept of the ADF and NZDF working together effectively has more to do with tradition than with capabilities mandated by treaty.
Outstanding, but sad reply.
I think yhis situation persists, because no one has bothered to update it to reality.
Its in direct bilateral interests that whilst each are independent entities, they at least dovetail each other in capability, we owe it to the future joint commander, if no one else.
For example, ADF assets are committed to the Coral Sea, we all need confidence that a comensurate NZ capability can cover the allocated Eastern Pacific AO.
The status quo is absurd.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Kiwis only spend about half(% of GDP) on Defence what Australia spends so would have to substantialy increase Defence spending.
Good luck with that.
Well, currently why would they?
There is no matrix they fit into, no requirement to field anything in particular.
No one reasonably suggests that the NZDF be the size of the ADF, but what they have should be of a defined standard, that would apply to both nations & mutually support/compliment each other.
Instead of individual nations being reactive to a scenario, with adhoc capabilities, wouldnt it be beneficially prudent to both parties to have more defined response planning?
Isnt that “defence planning”?
The current situation ignores the blatently obvious reaction that both parties will in all practicality respond together anyway.
There is no matrix they fit into, no requirement to field anything in particular.
No one reasonably suggests that the NZDF be the size of the ADF, but what they have should be of a defined standard, that would apply to both nations & mutually support/compliment each other.
Instead of individual nations being reactive to a scenario, with adhoc capabilities, wouldnt it be beneficially prudent to both parties to have more defined response planning?
Isnt that “defence planning”?
The current situation ignores the blatently obvious reaction that both parties will in all practicality respond together anyway.
Now apply the same logic to the Australia/USA relationship. Do you suggest that the USA be able to force Australia to provide a certain level of capability in a certain area? Surely the existing situation, where we see common goals and elect (for financial and technological reasons) to choose many US manufactured systems, but can elect as our own situation diverges to do otherwise is a model for the way NZ/AU should work.
Right down to the point where the US Government could choose to give us less weight in diplomatic terms because we're bludging off their taxpayer on tasks we should be doing ourselves and similarly that Australia should account NZ an unreliable friend if they choose to advantage their taxpayers by bludging on the Australian taxpayer to supply a service they should be doing themselves
oldsig
Australia and the US have a very strong mutually beneficial relationship, for some differing reasons, but mutually beneficial.
It's observable that there are many synergies of bilateral national interests in that.
But we are not as intrinsically bonded to impacts upon the US as Aust is to NZ, and visa-Versa.
To refer to an example on another thread as an example of this, piracy in the SthPac does not have the same impact on the US as it does to AustNZ.
A better comparison would be US and Canada.
The US would indeed be wise to form a capability response plan with Canada, to for example define ASW responses to their joint Atlantic shipping.
Can the US force Australia to provide capability?
Probably only if there's joint national interest, where synergies between allied capability make logical sense.
Can the US 'force' Canada the same way?
Probably more so, because they're intrinsically culturally, historically and geographically linked and there's inherent motivation to field co-ordinated capability.
t68
Well-Known Member
They are and not just by NATO but NORAD, that's the most likely use of the ex RAAF Hornets as they have said the have problems covering there commitment.
In view of the recent performance by the US President some may find interesting this opinion piece by Kym Bergmann in APDR.
https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-july-aug-2018/flipbook/4/
I think it is a prudent to revisit what our expectations are with the US. This is not to be taken in the context of hostility or some form of break away from the US, but rather culturally accepting there may be occasions when it is not in their interests to come to our aid.
This is their prerogative just as it is our own to not rely so much on the GIVEN that the US will always be there for us.
There could be many scenarios that they support our view but are geopolitically handicapped to assist us.
This will be the more so with an erratic US President not so well versed in geopolitics or inclined to help traditional friends
These are quickly changing times.
We may need to do an amendment to the 2016 DWP as to our force direction and acquisitions as a lot has happened in a short couple of years.
Thoughts and Regards S
https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-july-aug-2018/flipbook/4/
I think it is a prudent to revisit what our expectations are with the US. This is not to be taken in the context of hostility or some form of break away from the US, but rather culturally accepting there may be occasions when it is not in their interests to come to our aid.
This is their prerogative just as it is our own to not rely so much on the GIVEN that the US will always be there for us.
There could be many scenarios that they support our view but are geopolitically handicapped to assist us.
This will be the more so with an erratic US President not so well versed in geopolitics or inclined to help traditional friends
These are quickly changing times.
We may need to do an amendment to the 2016 DWP as to our force direction and acquisitions as a lot has happened in a short couple of years.
Thoughts and Regards S