NZDF General discussion thread

[Gibbo]

Next week with Rex Tillerson visiting i wonder if he will put the hard word on NZ to lift it's defense expenditure to 2% of GDP. It would be hard for the government to say we can not afford it since we are posting such large surpluses in the near future, 25-30 Billion over 5 years. We are the only Western Government with a surplus. If others can and they are in deficit it would make for a very interesting conversation. Do you guys think this conversation would get down to a capability level, only high level?

I would certainly hope the USA makes the request - it is putting more emphasis into the Pacific so it's not unreasonable to expect they might. I suspect however that the Govt will just waffle away about their planned $20Bn spending plan and say that shows the commitment they are making... even though it's really a modernisation plan rather than an expansion plan.

I also dare say the Govt would be reluctant to say much about it if we did get the word... they know the press would have a field day whipping up the anti-US and/or Pacifist groups. They would more likely quietly work at ways of treading that fine line to suit both sides of the equation - any expansion would be in small increments and unlikely to be very substantial!

Being a high-level political meeting I'd say there almost certainly wouldn't be a capability level discussion... that would involve defence chiefs, planners etc. This is more a diplomatic visit but likely will convey some high-level expectations.

 

[t68]

A days interaction with the defence force and you get some morons getting the panties all twisted, gee I hate the bloody lefties and do gooders who have nothing better to do, I certantly hope the NZ PM intervenes in this nonsense.


Education Minister to shut down guns in schools after army gave rifles to children | Stuff.co.nz


Edit
I just noticed stuff is run by fairfax no wonder they are making a mountain out of a molehill

 

[ngatimozart]

Briefing for Incoming Minister

Defence have released the latest Briefing for Incoming Minister, in this case Minister Mark Mitchell.

Of note:
New Zealand’s partners often view the Defence relationship as
something that goes hand-in-hand with a close economic relationship. (p. 9)

The total of the investment in capital out to 2030 is approximately $20 billion, made up of depreciation and capital injections, as well as year-on-year increases in operating funding that will see the Defence Force annual operating allowance double by 2030, while remaining roughly 1 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. (p. 15)
I presume that the CAPEx is now separate in GDP calculations, although given the US VP visit to Wellington on Tuesday I hope that pressure has been brought to bear on the NZG to substantial increase defence spending.

 Ice-strengthened naval vessels for support to our scientific presence in Antarctica, and in response to increased international interest in Southern Ocean fisheries stocks.
I noted the plural of vessel in this and given the language is this a typo, or is the intention now to have more than one SOPV?
 Additional funding for the replacement of the P-3 Orion, reflecting an increase in demand for air surveillance over our maritime domain and during multinational missions overseas. (ibid).

Rising tensions within the Asia Pacific region are causing concern.

• Our key defence partner is Australia
• After Australia the US defence relationship is ranked as the next most important.
• Involvement with UK defence is critical for the NZDF, in particular for specialist training and exercising, and doctrine and capability development.
• Canada is also a longstanding security partner, and has provided valuable support to New Zealand as part of some its major Defence acquisition and procurement projects, an aspect of the relationship that will continue to develop.
• New Zealand’s defence relationship with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is our closest and most important in the Middle East region. The UAE has emerged as a key actor in the region, and in the international fight against radical Islam.
• China is an important strategic partner for New Zealand due to its political and strategic importance in the Asia-Pacific region and globally. ... Our programme of military to military engagement has largely been limited to humanitarian and disaster relief exercises and training.

The Pacific Islands have not been reduced in importance.

Japan is seen as an ongoing relationship where NZ is now pursuing greater defence cooperation. Japan also is wanting to sell its military aircraft to NZ.

The South Korean relationship is seen more in the historical context of NZ's involvement the Korean War and UN Korean Armistice Control Commission. This is viewed as a long standing relationship and the briefing specifically notes the RNZN relationship with HHI in building ships.
(pp. 20, 24 - 26)

The Singaporean proposal to base F-15 aircraft at Ohakea is undergoing assessment at the moment with NZDF undertaking a study commissioned by Singapore on F-15 infrastructure costs at Ohakea. (pp. 26 - 27).

Overall a snapshot of NZ defence with hopefully some improvements to capability to come.

 

[Rob c]

t
 Ice-strengthened naval vessels for support to our scientific presence in Antarctica, and in response to increased international interest in Southern Ocean fisheries stocks.
I noted the plural of vessel in this and given the language is this a typo, or is the intention now to have more than one SOPV?
 Additional funding for the replacement of the P-3 Orion, reflecting an increase in demand for air surveillance over our maritime domain and during multinational missions overseas. (ibid).

I would suspect that they are including HMNZS Aotearoa and the SOPV as the plural number, but it would be nice to have a second SOPV. We can but hope

 

[ngatimozart]

t
 Ice-strengthened naval vessels for support to our scientific presence in Antarctica, and in response to increased international interest in Southern Ocean fisheries stocks.
I noted the plural of vessel in this and given the language is this a typo, or is the intention now to have more than one SOPV?
 Additional funding for the replacement of the P-3 Orion, reflecting an increase in demand for air surveillance over our maritime domain and during multinational missions overseas. (ibid).

I would suspect that they are including HMNZS Aotearoa and the SOPV as the plural number, but it would be nice to have a second SOPV. We can but hope

Thanks. Forgot about the Aotearoa being ice strengthened.

 

[Rob c]

I wonder if the additional funding for the P 3 replacement, spoken of in the above briefing will mean additional aircraft?

 

[ngatimozart]

I wonder if the additional funding for the P 3 replacement, spoken of in the above briefing will mean additional aircraft?

Possibly, but I think it would be to reflect more realistic costings that would have come from the FASC RFI responses.

 

[Rob c]

Possibly, but I think it would be to reflect more realistic costings that would have come from the FASC RFI responses.

You could be right but why I thought it could be an increase in numbers was the sentence. ( Reflecting an increase in demand for air surveillance over our maritime domain and during multinational missions overseas.) Given as the reason for the increase which seems to imply more numbers would be needed. maybe I am reading to much into it.

 

[ngatimozart]

You could be right but why I thought it could be an increase in numbers was the sentence. ( Reflecting an increase in demand for air surveillance over our maritime domain and during multinational missions overseas.) Given as the reason for the increase which seems to imply more numbers would be needed. maybe I am reading to much into it.

They only enquired about 4 P-8A, but they are also serious about some ISR and maritime surveillance capability on the King Airs for training and EEZ surveillance.

 

[Gibbo]

They only enquired about 4 P-8A, but they are also serious about some ISR and maritime surveillance capability on the King Airs for training and EEZ surveillance.

Yes and given the current B200 lease expires in September we must be fairly close to hearing an announcement on this - given lead times required for the successful tenderer to have the teams, equipment & training etc in place to ensure operational continuity for 42 Sqn... even if the incumbent gets the nod.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes and given the current B200 lease expires in September we must be fairly close to hearing an announcement on this - given lead times required for the successful tenderer to have the teams, equipment & training etc in place to ensure operational continuity for 42 Sqn... even if the incumbent gets the nod.

The Aircrew Training Capability Project (ACTC) RFT, for that, was for a lease of 7 years from September this year and AFAIK no announcements have been made yet. There was a hold up in November 2016 because of damage to the MOD building from the Kaikoura quake, necessitating the building being red stickered and staff moved into the Freyberg Building behind it and elsewhere.

 

[40 deg south]

The Aircrew Training Capability Project (ACTC) RFT, for that, was for a lease of 7 years from September this year and AFAIK no announcements have been made yet. There was a hold up in November 2016 because of damage to the MOD building from the Kaikoura quake, necessitating the building being red stickered and staff moved into the Freyberg Building behind it and elsewhere.

Speaking of which, driving up Molesworth Street earlier in the week I noticed the orange cones and steel barriers are going up around Freyberg House. I assume the demolition work is kicking off soon.

This is an occasion when the government decision (taken in the 80s) to move departmental HQs into leased buildings looks wise. While NZDF are having to scramble to find a new home, they don't have to manage the demolition of a large building on a highly constricted site, or scrape up another $100 mil to replace it.

 

[MrConservative]

NZ research ship flares Vanuatu-France border dispute | Radio New Zealand News

Vanuatu are not happy with us it seems. Nor with the French for that matter.

 

[tongan_yam]

Public Perception on Defence Spend

I was playing around on the isidewith site and one of the questions was, "Should New Zealand increase or decrease military spending?".

I know some of the non-Kiwi's have given us a going over for our lack of appetite to spend more on our defence spending. Interestingly though the results show 37% wanting an increase, 34% happy with the current % spend and 30% wanting a decrease.

Even without the gentle prodding from our coalition partners, the signs are there for an up tick in our % spend.

You can check the results out here isidewith.com

 

[Rob c]

I was playing around on the isidewith site and one of the questions was, "Should New Zealand increase or decrease military spending?".

I know some of the non-Kiwi's have given us a going over for our lack of appetite to spend more on our defence spending. Interestingly though the results show 37% wanting an increase, 34% happy with the current % spend and 30% wanting a decrease.

Even without the gentle prodding from our coalition partners, the signs are there for an up tick in our % spend.

You can check the results out here isidewith.com

An interesting result, given the lack of debate that has taken place on the subject, I think from memory the figures are similar to previous polls.

 

[Gracie1234]

I think the public in general would support an increase if it was presented in the right way. What I find interesting about this poll is it was covering many aspects of our country not just defence. So people were thinking holistically. Those 30% who were happy with the current level would be relative easy to convince. There has not been mass histeria or outrage over the 20 Billion. That was a huge number. The economy is going well and we could easily afford 2% GDP.

 

[Massive]

The economy is going well and we could easily afford 2% GDP.

But should you?

I feel that given the strategic situation you face there is no need to spend more than the current 1%.

That is enough to patrol your EEZ and provide meaningful & appropriately sized contributions to international operations.

Hard to see a realistic grand strategy where you would need to do more?

Regards,

Massive

 

[t68]

But should you?

I feel that given the strategic situation you face there is no need to spend more than the current 1%.

That is enough to patrol your EEZ and provide meaningful & appropriately sized contributions to international operations.

Hard to see a realistic grand strategy where you would need to do more?

Regards,

Massive

Yes I belive they do, they need a capital investment so they can actually achieve international regional and local commitments.

A one for one investment along the lines of what they have now is pushing the same problems down the road once again sooner or later they come unstuck for the lack of numbers in major capital equipment when it ages.

I believe the best out come for NZDF in the current situation is to focus on how they an contribute naval task forces this where as Anzac partner they can enhance our combined ability.

It would never happen but I'd like to see the RNZN go back to a 4x frigate Navy with a secondary amphibious warfare capabilty of 3x Gallica class LPD with 2x AOR, along with another 6x NH90 so I needed they have the capabilty to surge out 6 or so that gives a theoretical company lift of 2x ships plus heavy equipment

 

[Rob c]

But should you?

I feel that given the strategic situation you face there is no need to spend more than the current 1%.

That is enough to patrol your EEZ and provide meaningful & appropriately sized contributions to international operations.

Hard to see a realistic grand strategy where you would need to do more?

Regards,

Massive

The problem with equating your defence spending with your current strategic situation is that it can change a lot faster than you can change your ability to defend yourself. The reality is that no country since the 1860's has foreseen a threat in time to rearm to meet the changed situation, The concept that you don't need to have the full ability to defend yourself when there is no threat has when put to the ultimate test had a 100% failure rate.

 

[Massive]

The problem with equating your defence spending with your current strategic situation is that it can change a lot faster than you can change your ability to defend yourself. The reality is that no country since the 1860's has foreseen a threat in time to rearm to meet the changed situation, The concept that you don't need to have the full ability to defend yourself when there is no threat has when put to the ultimate test had a 100% failure rate.

You would need to start with threats though and I just can't see them.

Certainly no threats to survival, and threats to vital interests would need to be met with international coalitions anyway.

Realistically a single frigate contribution to a task force, a battalion-sized battlegroup or a 1-2 MPA or transport aircraft to an international operation would be the limit.

Rough thinking would be:

3 Frigates
4 OPV
1 lift ship

1 multi-role brigade - 2 inf battalion, 1 ACR, 1 artillery regiment

6 MPA, 6 transport, maritime & lift helicopters

That's about it - looks roughly similar to what NZ has now.

Should be possible within 1% GDP?

Point by t68 on investment requirements well made though.

Regards,

Massive