NZDF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

The bang for $ seemed to go further then it seemed. But agree NZ can do a lot more than the 1% it is currently doing, the main problem I see is that most people see the current strength and belive that’s all NZ can contribute.

Ask how many homeowners have insurance policy and keep the premiums up to date, Defence is the governments insurance policy and the budget is the premium.

I suspect that part of the reasoning behind what the current Vote Defence size has been is due to some Kiwis perceiving that is all that can be afforded, while others perceive that is all that is needed.

IMO the reality is a bit different from the perception, and I suspect that the specific perception has been deliberately cultivated to a degree.

One of those 'deliberate cultivations' that I am referring to is also the actual size, in real terms, of the NZ Vote Defence. Now I did go looking through the current Vote Defence to see if I could locate the Capital Charge and I did not see it, but I would not be surprised if was still around in a slightly different or perhaps renamed form. It definitely has been in past Vote Defence budgets and IIRC was typically around 23% of the Vote Defence budget but did not represent actual funding Defence received and could use/expend on operations, upgrades, or acquisitions. I am not going to keep banging on about it (people have periodically complained over the years) but there have been times when gov't was basically claiming that the NZDF budget was 1% GDP, but the actual amount of funding to cover personnel costs, acquisitions, support, operations, etc. was only ~0.67% GDP after accounting for the GST and Capital Charge.

Just keeping the NZ Vote Defence at 1% GDP but completely eliminating the Capital Charge would be the equivalent of a ~23% increase in the NZDF budget and would work out to some NZD$400+ mil. more p.a. available for defence spends.

 

[ngatimozart]

A very good article discussing NZDF's force mismatch. The premise is that the govt's expectations of NZDF missions are not backed up by the level of funding required. This mismatch is a very large gap between expectations and funding.

The Price of New Zealand's Strategy-Force Mismatch

 

[MrConservative]

A very good article discussing NZDF's force mismatch. The premise is that the govt's expectations of NZDF missions are not backed up by the level of funding required. This mismatch is a very large gap between expectations and funding.

The Price of New Zealand's Strategy-Force Mismatch

The most honest and realistic article written within the NZ Defence and Security context for years. His articles need to be published widely in the MSM.

 

[friend]

All country have budges for defense and it is the first item in a budget that is reduced and then the defense is told to sell surplus land to make up the reduction.

My observation of NZ political defense discussions is they want a defense force but can not afford to maintain a good level eg the last natural disasters have placed greater pressure on the nations coffers.

• The NZ defense force is a good territorial and UN peacekeeping force and is a credit to the leadership to archive this with the budget they are given.
• The airlift , fast jet,mid air refueling,helicopters just to name a few are in need of major expenditure.
• The navy is struggling for coastal patrols with in their EEZ, the frigates are hitting their economical / force projection capabilities use by date.
• The army need to reequip across all sectors.

This all comes at a price that a nation the size of NZ can not afford but they have been trying to achieve this by reducing the quality of their purchases to some extent.

To achieve a nation ability to protect their citizens they need to be able to protect their EEZ , patrol beyond and meet international agreements. New Zealand will have to form even closer ties with Australia.

A possible goal to achieve their nation Aims:

Navy

1. Pay Australia to patrol the outer EEZ , patrol the international area the NZ patrol now ( this would save on the frigate replacement costs, shore facilities, access to a sub fleet, heavy lift ships and possible new fleet oilers. The inner EEZ would be handled by a UK / US style coastal command. All NZ navy personnel may be able to inter-transfer between to two navies.)
2. All Navy training is conducted in Australia. (this frees up shore facilities and training staff)

Air force

• Once again a deal with Australia to provide airlift and fast jets to patrol NZ airspace and EEZ ( NZ may need to supply a base on North and South island. All flight training by RAAF, inter service transfers.

Army

• The money saved with the Navy, Air force and rationalization of land asserts would most probably cover the army modernization plus new coastal patrol boats med and long range.

These a just a few of the observation I have observed regarding smaller nations, it not meant to be critical but a constructive view on how New Zealand could enhance the Nations ability to protect her EEZ and maintain their national sovereignty.

 

[ASSAIL]

All country have budges for defense and it is the first item in a budget that is reduced and then the defense is told to sell surplus land to make up the reduction.

My observation of NZ political defense discussions is they want a defense force but can not afford to maintain a good level eg the last natural disasters have placed greater pressure on the nations coffers.

• The NZ defense force is a good territorial and UN peacekeeping force and is a credit to the leadership to archive this with the budget they are given.
• The airlift , fast jet,mid air refueling,helicopters just to name a few are in need of major expenditure.
• The navy is struggling for coastal patrols with in their EEZ, the frigates are hitting their economical / force projection capabilities use by date.
• The army need to reequip across all sectors.

This all comes at a price that a nation the size of NZ can not afford but they have been trying to achieve this by reducing the quality of their purchases to some extent.

To achieve a nation ability to protect their citizens they need to be able to protect their EEZ , patrol beyond and meet international agreements. New Zealand will have to form even closer ties with Australia.

A possible goal to achieve their nation Aims:

Navy

1. Pay Australia to patrol the outer EEZ , patrol the international area the NZ patrol now ( this would save on the frigate replacement costs, shore facilities, access to a sub fleet, heavy lift ships and possible new fleet oilers. The inner EEZ would be handled by a UK / US style coastal command. All NZ navy personnel may be able to inter-transfer between to two navies.)
2. All Navy training is conducted in Australia. (this frees up shore facilities and training staff)

Air force

• Once again a deal with Australia to provide airlift and fast jets to patrol NZ airspace and EEZ ( NZ may need to supply a base on North and South island. All flight training by RAAF, inter service transfers.

Army

• The money saved with the Navy, Air force and rationalization of land asserts would most probably cover the army modernization plus new coastal patrol boats med and long range.

These a just a few of the observation I have observed regarding smaller nations, it not meant to be critical but a constructive view on how New Zealand could enhance the Nations ability to protect her EEZ and maintain their national sovereignty.

NZ is a wealthy developed nation whose economy has performed solidly over the last few years, she does not need to outsource any part of her sovereignty to her near neighbour.

I know you don’t mean to but the theme of your post is slightly disparaging to NZ .
If the NZ people wish to spend more on defence they could but much to the chagrin of the NZ members on this forum they have not chosen to do so.

NZ also has a commercial accrual accounting system for defence which prices in a “capital charge” for all defence assets, ie the cost of providing such things as military bases, dockyards and other assets is calculated as a cost forgone by the people and is thus added to the defence budget (see link) eg under this system the percapita cost of defence $392 or around 1.4% of GDP but if measured using the standard NATO system it’s $295 or 1.09% of GDP
By way of comparison Australia spends $1100 per capita. (All reduced to common dollars)

So there is capacity but again, the will of the people prevails.

https://www.victoria.ac.nz/hppi/cen...ns-archive/strategic-briefing-papers/NZDS.pdf

My answer is hiding in the quote starting with “I know you....” but my editing skills have deserted me. Can one of the Mods please help!

EDIT: Fixed. NG.

 

[Todjaeger]

All country have budges for defense and it is the first item in a budget that is reduced and then the defense is told to sell surplus land to make up the reduction.

My observation of NZ political defense discussions is they want a defense force but can not afford to maintain a good level eg the last natural disasters have placed greater pressure on the nations coffers.

• The NZ defense force is a good territorial and UN peacekeeping force and is a credit to the leadership to archive this with the budget they are given.
• The airlift , fast jet,mid air refueling,helicopters just to name a few are in need of major expenditure.
• The navy is struggling for coastal patrols with in their EEZ, the frigates are hitting their economical / force projection capabilities use by date.
• The army need to reequip across all sectors.

This all comes at a price that a nation the size of NZ can not afford but they have been trying to achieve this by reducing the quality of their purchases to some extent.

To achieve a nation ability to protect their citizens they need to be able to protect their EEZ , patrol beyond and meet international agreements. New Zealand will have to form even closer ties with Australia.

A possible goal to achieve their nation Aims:

Navy

1. Pay Australia to patrol the outer EEZ , patrol the international area the NZ patrol now ( this would save on the frigate replacement costs, shore facilities, access to a sub fleet, heavy lift ships and possible new fleet oilers. The inner EEZ would be handled by a UK / US style coastal command. All NZ navy personnel may be able to inter-transfer between to two navies.)
2. All Navy training is conducted in Australia. (this frees up shore facilities and training staff)

Air force

• Once again a deal with Australia to provide airlift and fast jets to patrol NZ airspace and EEZ ( NZ may need to supply a base on North and South island. All flight training by RAAF, inter service transfers.

Army

• The money saved with the Navy, Air force and rationalization of land asserts would most probably cover the army modernization plus new coastal patrol boats med and long range.

These a just a few of the observation I have observed regarding smaller nations, it not meant to be critical but a constructive view on how New Zealand could enhance the Nations ability to protect her EEZ and maintain their national sovereignty.

Oh boy, here we go...

For starters, many of the suggestions individually amount to ceding an element of Kiwi sovereignty to Australia. When the suggestions are aggregated, it is basically advocating for Australia to assume defence responsibility for (and therefore control of) New Zealand.

Now, I am not opposed to a union between Australia and New Zealand for a number of reasons, but that IMO should only happen with the overwhelming support of the leadership and even more importantly the citizenry of both nations, like a national referendum where 2/3rds of the eligible voters of each nation vote in favour of uniting.

As a side note, consider the advantages and despair caused by a united Australia and New Zealand in both international cricket and rugby...

Now with respect to New Zealand's ability (or perceived inability) to afford a proper defence force, that IMO is errant nonsense. The size of the NZ defence budget (Vote Defence) has been between 0.67% and 1% GDP for some time because that is what the powers that be have wanted the defence budget to be, and not because NZ could not afford a higher allocation of funding for defence.

The powers that be have, IMO gotten away with cutting defence back as far as they have because the ideologues behind the cutbacks managed to sell the (again, IMO) false notion that NZ "was in a benign strategic environment" with no threats to NZ sovereignty or interests, and by also managing to make the size of the Vote Defence appear inflated using some accounting trickery.

Current examples of that sort of ideology which had led past gov'ts to let the NZDF get into the sort of shape it currently is in can be easily found looking at commentary coming from the Green Party defence spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman in response to the recent P-8A Poseidon announcement for the RNZAF. Me being me, I have a hard time understanding how a person who claims to advocate for a rules-based system of international order and has volunteered to work as part of the defence teams for war criminals before UN tribunals, could not also understand that there are times when people will refuse to abide by those same international rules, and force could be required to force compliance, or even just to defend against the rule breakers.

 

[Womble 47]

It is totally a non starter ,Australia's interests are sometimes not quite allinged to NZ so if something happens any resources deployed would be recalled very fast. Also if I understand your post correctly NZ will pay for the services provided ,if this train of thought is followed through NZ should bid out parts of it's Defense commitments worldwide ,perhaps China would be the lowest bidder.
Hopefully the govt of NZ is starting to wake up to the fact it is a big bad world out there

 

[John Fedup]

Perhaps NZ defence supporters should make more citizens aware that defence assets often have dual roles. This link is especially relevant considering the recent P-8 announcement.

U.S. Military Is On A Roll With Dramatic International Rescue Missions At Sea.

 

[Todjaeger]

Perhaps NZ defence supporters should make more citizens aware that defence assets often have dual roles. This link is especially relevant considering the recent P-8 announcement.

U.S. Military Is On A Roll With Dramatic International Rescue Missions At Sea.

I am not sure that would be a good approach in the NZ context, as it seems that the non-defence roles as the ones most often highlighted. Where that can become a problem, especially for NZ is that the importance associated with SAR and/or HADR roles is that people then seem to start advocating for giving the non-defence roles even greater priority in terms of resources and funding, at the expense (literally) of the defence/military roles.

The P-3K2 Orion upgrades come to mind as an example, where the aircraft were re-winged but the wiring harness was not upgraded to the then current MIL-STD so that precision munitions could not be carried, or the fact that there were no upgrades to enable a continued ASW role.

Having been looking through the commentary on a Kiwi-specific aviation forum, it does seem to be or have been the case that many participants felt that the SAR role was of prime importance, to the point that it was the perception of many that the P-8A Poseidon would be the 'wrong' aircraft because it would not or could not do SAR operations low and slow.

 

[40 deg south]

NZ also has a commercial accrual accounting system for defence which prices in a “capital charge” for all defence assets, ie the cost of providing such things as military bases, dockyards and other assets is calculated as a cost forgone by the people and is thus added to the defence budget (see link) eg under this system the percapita cost of defence $392 or around 1.4% of GDP but if measured using the standard NATO system it’s $295 or 1.09% of GDP
By way of comparison Australia spends $1100 per capita. (All reduced to common dollars)

Just a minor clarification - the capital charge isn't specific to defence, but applies to capital expenditure by all government departments. It just happens that defence requires more expensive tools of the trade than most other ministries.

 

[Massive]

The Navy possessed 4 ASW Leander Class Frigates, a 3900 ton Survey and Resupply Ship, a 1400 ton Survey and Research ship, 4 Lake Class for Patrol, 2 Moa Class for Inshore Survey, a further Moa class for Dive Support, 4 more Moa Class for the RNZVR in the patrol role, a dockyard tender with a 13000 ton fleet tanker under order. There were 2800 regular force Navy personal and 450 in the RNZVNR and 800 on the Naval Fleet Reserve list.

The RNZAF possessed 22 Skyhawks, 16 Strikemasters, 2 Boeing 727’s, 5 C-130H’s Hercules, 10 C-1 Andovers, 6 P-3 Orions, 3 Fokker F-27’s, 14 Iroquois, 8 Sioux, 7 Wasps, 19 Airtrainers and 3 Cessna 421C’s. There were 4300 personnel in the regular RNZAF and 1035 in the Territorial Air Force and Active Reserve.

The Army possessed, 2 regular force infantry battalions including 1 based in Singapore, 6 territorial force infantry battalions; a 1 light tank squadron with 26 Scorpions, 3 armoured squadrons with 72 M113 APC’s, 4 engineer squadrons and 2 field workshops; 4 signals squadrons; 3 transport squadrons; 3 supply companies; 2 medical battalions; 1 field hospital; 2 artillery regiments equipped with 54 105mm howizters, plus the NZSAS Group. There were 5700 Regular force personnel and 6300 in the territorials and reserve force.

Interestingly looking at this the loss of 2 frigates from the Navy is relatively modest compared to the dramatic reduction in the RNZAF and in the support arms in the Army.

Regards,

Massive

 

[t68]

Interestingly looking at this the loss of 2 frigates from the Navy is relatively modest compared to the dramatic reduction in the RNZAF and in the support arms in the Army.

Regards,

Massive

What you consider modest I don’t think is the right mindset 50% if the surface combat fleet is not modest in its own right until you consider 100% of the Air Combat Wing, in reality it’s mindblowing. Imagine the reaction in Australia if someone suggested that.

 

[ngatimozart]

The three new service chiefs have been announced:

Chief of Navy, Commodore David Proctor upon promotion to Rear Admiral replacing Rear Admiral John Martin effective end of November 2018.
Chief of Army, Brigadier John Boswell, DSD, upon promotion to Major General replacing Major General Peter Kelly effective 10 Sep 2018.
Chief of Air Force, Air Commodore Andrew Clark upon promotion to Air Vice-Marshal replacing Air Vice-Marshal Tony Davies effective 7 Sep 2018.

Chief of Defence Force welcomes three new service chiefs

 

[ngatimozart]

The 2018 Strategic Defence Policy Review Cabinet Documents have been released. A .pdf file of 30 pages.

 

[ngatimozart]

@John Fedup @Novascotiaboy @Calculus @beegee I've talked about Canadian procurement and what I think about it. I also said that NZ has had some howlers in that area and this publication covers the recent ones from, IIRC, the mid 1980s. It's well worth the read, that I think almost makes Indian defence procurement look good, and is a free download from the Australian National University.

Timing is Everything - The Politics and Processes of New Zealand Defence Acquisition Decision Making, by Dr Peter Greener.

Dr Greener is a NZ based academic. It is a text that I have recommended for quite a while.

This the recent govt review of defence procurement. A new left wing govt and they have launched reviews basically into everything and the current Minister of Defence was a very strong and vocal critic of defence procurement practices. He launched this review and is well worth the read after you have read Peter Greener's work.

Review of Defence Procurement Policies and Practices for Major Capability Projects

These two works offer an opportunity for a compare and contrast exercise.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Good morning Ngati

I have previously read the Greener document and found it to be an interesting read. The second document is a typical acronym centric academic attempt to make a process as difficult as possible.

Typical of so many governments today they just cannot make a decision in a timely manner.

Why reinvent the wheel on defence acquisition each and every time equipment is needed?

The MAN truck purchase is a perfect example of how to get it done. NZDF needs logistics trucks. Oh the UK just spent millions to determine what they think is the best. Looks good to me lets add on an order for NZ. I realize this is quite simplistic but given the numbers of anything involved this process has merit to get the equipment in service at good cost and in a timely manner.

This process may not work for all acquisitions but I think it would for many.

Let me use the protected mobility project as an across the board impact acquisition. NZDF needs to protect its forces in a variety of threat levels but doesnt need hundreds or thousands of vehicles. NZ doesnt have a domestic production capability. NZ needs interoperability with its likely allies namely Australia. NZ needs ease of deployment. NZ needs the best it can get for the money it has. All of this can be provided by going to Australia and acquiring the Hawkei and the Bushmaster.

The Hawkei ticks all the above boxes for NZ. Hot production line. Exellent product. Used by closest defence partner. C130 transportable.

A long drawn out review and decision making process only delays the introduction to service with a purchase that would likely by no more than a couple of hundred units at best.

The FAMC purchase to me is a no brainer as well at this point given the "novelty" tag that will be assigned to the KC390. THE LM C130 family is the only choice for tactical replacement of the existing fleet. So just get on with it and order it. Bite the bullet and drop the coin on the table and get in the line. Forget NZ specific and go FMS for three SOF version and three J30 Super Hercules. It isnt rocket science.

All this from a guy with a degree in life and a grade 12 education.

 

[John Fedup]

@Novascotiaboy .....did you copy junior? Given the quantities Canada orders for some items, this advice can also apply to Canada.

 

[ngatimozart]

G'day Nova,

The thing is back in the 2000's we were offered the opportunity to acquire the C-130J as part of the RAAF deal which was a very good deal. But the then PM, MINDEF and Cabinet were anti US and Australia, refused the deal, wasted 1/4 billion dollars and 14 years upgrading tired old C-130Hs. Note that the 3 oldest C-130H aircraft in the RNZAF service were the first three C-130H built by Lockheed. IIRC, NZ7001 was the prototype H model. I wouldn't mind acquiring C-130J as the tactical transport and if it was the KC variant better still. The A400M will still be around when the strategic part of the FAMC is decided and that is what I think people (including myself) sometimes forget. Any VIP aircraft is another story, but could be a B738MAX or A321NEO fitted with a cargo door for medevac missions. If the B738MAX is selected it would have some commonality with the P-8A and if the A321NEO is selected, Air NZ operate the A321.

We did well with the MHOV acquisition, acquiring about 200 MAN trucks by tacking on to the end of the pommy contract. It's something that maybe the Aussies should've done as well which would have driven the overall price down for all three nations, because the Aussies have acquired the same vehicle. I also think that the poms are looking at acquiring the Rheinmetall Boxer CRV as well. If they do so, they should tack it on to the Aussie order and we should do the same. That includes the Spike missiles as well. Again such a 3 nation order would be a large order for Rheinmetall and should result in a lower unit price.

The NZSF Brigade have recently acquired some, IIRC, Bushmasters ex ADF and the NZ Pinzgauer future is being decided at some stage because I believe there is a project looking at whether to undertake a MLU or replace. Same with the NZLAV.

 

[RegR]

G'day Nova,

The thing is back in the 2000's we were offered the opportunity to acquire the C-130J as part of the RAAF deal which was a very good deal. But the then PM, MINDEF and Cabinet were anti US and Australia, refused the deal, wasted 1/4 billion dollars and 14 years upgrading tired old C-130Hs. Note that the 3 oldest C-130H aircraft in the RNZAF service were the first three C-130H built by Lockheed. IIRC, NZ7001 was the prototype H model. I wouldn't mind acquiring C-130J as the tactical transport and if it was the KC variant better still. The A400M will still be around when the strategic part of the FAMC is decided and that is what I think people (including myself) sometimes forget. Any VIP aircraft is another story, but could be a B738MAX or A321NEO fitted with a cargo door for medevac missions. If the B738MAX is selected it would have some commonality with the P-8A and if the A321NEO is selected, Air NZ operate the A321.

We did well with the MHOV acquisition, acquiring about 200 MAN trucks by tacking on to the end of the pommy contract. It's something that maybe the Aussies should've done as well which would have driven the overall price down for all three nations, because the Aussies have acquired the same vehicle. I also think that the poms are looking at acquiring the Rheinmetall Boxer CRV as well. If they do so, they should tack it on to the Aussie order and we should do the same. That includes the Spike missiles as well. Again such a 3 nation order would be a large order for Rheinmetall and should result in a lower unit price.

The NZSF Brigade have recently acquired some, IIRC, Bushmasters ex ADF and the NZ Pinzgauer future is being decided at some stage because I believe there is a project looking at whether to undertake a MLU or replace. Same with the NZLAV.

I guess though if we had of gone with C130Js back then we would have been stuck with them for the forseeable future regardless as they would still "new" today (for us anyway) with no option to see how other more capable AC pan out (ie A400) even though we are still waiting now anyway. If we still do get C130s at least they will be the latest models C/W upgrades ala SF mods, software etc.

We actually lucked in with the MANs as they were directly from the british line not an additional order as they found they actually ordered more than they needed in the end for their future plans. This meant we could get them at a good price in a good time as they were already being built anyway. The australian trucks are actually the latest version and next model up from ours.

Perhaps a similar deal could be struck with the light armour package with their panthers to replace the 60 armoured Pinz as they are a relatively common type, in service and more importantly combat proven.

Hopefully the SAS bushmasters prove their benefit and paves the way for a wider army purchase of the latest MR6 variant to complement NZLAV and whatever is aqquired for light armour in both personnel and logistics support as we currently have a too heavy option and a too light option and no in between. If we had say another Timor 99 type operation I've always wondered what we would realistically be able to send now in comparison to what we sent back then in terms of suitability, operation and protection with our limited options?

 

[Rob c]

The FAMC purchase to me is a no brainer as well at this point given the "novelty" tag that will be assigned to the KC390. THE LM C130 family is the only choice for tactical replacement of the existing fleet. So just get on with it and order it. Bite the bullet and drop the coin on the table and get in the line. Forget NZ specific and go FMS for three SOF version and three J30 Super Hercules. It isnt rocket science.

I know i am just repeating myself, but I think that to purchase the C 130J is a good short term decision but a very bad long term decision, given the time we would hang on to them. The problem I have is they simply don't give the increase in ability that we need, given the likely lifespan we would subject them to,( 30 to 50 years ) so we would be basically operating in the same regime over a period of 90 to 110 years. I know that the pollies will likely take the safe option but I would like to see the same sort of capability jump like we will see when we go from the P 3 to the P 8. Given that the Japanese aircraft seem to be out , I think the best option is the A 400 and any delays in making a decision are to me welcome as this will strengthen the chances of this option.