NZDF General discussion thread

[Rob c]

I think there is a lot that NZ has that doesnt need to be. The air force should really be disbanded with tactical/strategic aircraft folded into the army, ASW aircraft folded into No. 6 squadron RNZN and if possible try and set up a deal with the ADF to train the pilots in Australia using ADF assets rather then putting money into such a small fleet.

When it comes to funding without the RNZAF it should be a 60/40 split between Army and Navy.

I fail to see what would be achieved by this as it would probably increase costs and would be exceedingly complicated.
As with the Air warfare officers, the cost of doing pilot training in Australia would be higher than doing it ourselves as they would have to buy additional aircraft (which we would have to pay for) to accommodate us as they are only have the numbers for their current requirements and their wage structure is higher than ours. then there is the matter of training the large number of aircraft technicians, avionic technicians and armament technicians, We would wind up with duplication and additional costs. On top of this your aircraft engineering control as carried out by De Eng at defence headquarters which provides the ongoing technical support for the base engineers would be duplicated. There are a number of other areas that would be a cause for duplication, such as aircraft parts supply and fuel supply to name a couple. None of the bases could be closed as they would be needed by either the army or navy so no saving there. At the end of WW1 the RAF was setup to eliminate the duplication caused by the separate RNAS (royal navy air service )and the RFC ( royal flying corp) why would we want to go there again.
As I have always said the basic defence of NZ requires that we know what is going on in our area (airborne, seabourne and underwater) and this is achieved through surveillance and intelligence and have the ability to control, neutralize or eliminate anything that we don't want there. We realy need to get away from Helen Clarks distorted vision of defence and get back to getting the basics right.
I have to ask the question, was this idea posted as a serious proposal or was it just to ignite discussion. If it was the latter it was a success but if it was the former it was a little deficient.

 

[OPSSG]

@OPSSG made a comment on his quite informative post in the South China Sea thread earlier today and I quote it here:

To be frank, I would put NZ in the same category as the Philippines on both counts, especially as view from Australia, the US, UK, and ASEAN. So speak as an ex RNZAF bod if the RNZAF was disbanded as suggested by vonnoobie, I would not be totally surprised.

Forgive me for sharing my point of view on unintended consequences. Maybe the solution is to budget and plan for a 3rd Frigate (rather than the current two) but I recognize that is going to be a challenge.

It breaks my heart to see your navy so under resourced but would hesitate to suggest a budgetary amputation of arms (with the army and air force as a capable joint military force) to as a cure to a toe infection (with the navy as under-resourced leg of the tri-service force) which are the legs supporting NZ's international trade and fisheries. Within this generation, the fisheries in the South China Sea will depleted and the biggest fishing vessels from this fleet will be sailing south, way south and it will be a full time job - keeping poaching at bay (as the Indonesians are discovering).

Although the funding should be 60% RNZN and 40% Army because the RNZN would have higher tech requirements (hence more expensive) in C5ISR than the Army.

From my perspective, NZDF is a joint force and a badly under-resourced one. Your army is only 1 infantry brigade in size - with supporting engineer and artillery formations. If it is any smaller, it can't generate outputs or have higher command positions for your 3 Commanding Officers to aspire to a higher command. That is when, the profession at arms becomes so unattractive that you can't get smart people to join.

My reserve battalion HQ came for Exercise Lion Walk in the mid-1990s and we have so much respect for your guys.

We actually don't require a large army and it could be restructured to a marines type CONOPS & TOE etc., because realistically we aren't going to be chasing three Soviet tank armies back to Mother Russia through the Fulda Gap.

True but....

So my view is something based on the USMC or similar, with an amphib and possibly an airborne foci.

A US MEB will cost more than the entire NZDF defence budget.

Singapore as a Army of 6 Divisions (3rd, 6th, 9th, 21st, 25th Divisions and 2PDF, which is for homeland defence force) actually looked and considered the US Marines as a model and decided we could not afford it and decided to create our 7SIB (way back in the 1970s), as an elite Guards formation (which is the core from which we grew the 21st Division, which is heli-mobile and amphibious but not parachute qualified as a force of choice). It's the cost of acquiring, training and retaining the tanks, the attack helicopters, the troop lift helicopters, the anti-tank weapons, the artillery and HIMARS, SHORADS and the required sea lift that is way more expensive than a brigade of troops.

 

[ASSAIL]

I fail to see what would be achieved by this as it would probably increase costs and would be exceedingly complicated.
As with the Air warfare officers, the cost of doing pilot training in Australia would be higher than doing it ourselves as they would have to buy additional aircraft (which we would have to pay for) to accommodate us as they are only have the numbers for their current requirements and their wage structure is higher than ours. then there is the matter of training the large number of aircraft technicians, avionic technicians and armament technicians, We would wind up with duplication and additional costs. On top of this your aircraft engineering control as carried out by De Eng at defence headquarters which provides the ongoing technical support for the base engineers would be duplicated. There are a number of other areas that would be a cause for duplication, such as aircraft parts supply and fuel supply to name a couple. None of the bases could be closed as they would be needed by either the army or navy so no saving there. At the end of WW1 the RAF was setup to eliminate the duplication caused by the separate RNAS (royal navy air service )and the RFC ( royal flying corp) why would we want to go there again.
As I have always said the basic defence of NZ requires that we know what is going on in our area (airborne, seabourne and underwater) and this is achieved through surveillance and intelligence and have the ability to control, neutralize or eliminate anything that we don't want there. We realy need to get away from Helen Clarks distorted vision of defence and get back to getting the basics right.
I have to ask the question, was this idea posted as a serious proposal or was it just to ignite discussion. If it was the latter it was a success but if it was the former it was a little deficient.

I started this in my post 4775. My question remains, has resource allocation ever been discussed by defence planners.
You have to stay with the general proposition that there seems to be an imbalance with regard to NZ’s strategic circumstance.
If the discussion ends up with specifics ie this or that should be cut to fund the other then everyone has a strong opinion.
The strategic planners in the military and government are responsible for setting the priorities and my question was, have these priorities ever been challenged by the various parties, if not, where is the supporting evidence to leave things as they are.
The quantum of funds is one discussion, their allocation within the Defence Force is what I’m asking.

 

[pea032]

Im pretty sure there was a paper (cant remember which one?) that prioritised army as it would be cheaper to maintain a depolyable capability as it was not so technologically complex as the other services and their capabilities. And if that doesn't sum up the NZ govt attitude toward defence and the amount of say treasury has on defence i don't know what does.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm pretty sure there was a paper (cant remember which one?) that prioritised army as it would be cheaper to maintain a deployable capability as it was not so technologically complex as the other services and their capabilities. And if that doesn't sum up the NZ govt attitude toward defence and the amount of say treasury has on defence I don't know what does.

I think it was in Peter Greener's Timing Is Everything - The Politics and Processes of New Zealand Defence Acquisition Decision Making. I thoroughly recommend it and can be downloaded for free from the link, or a hard copy can be bought. I think that your last sentence: "if that doesn't sum up the NZ govt attitude toward defence and the amount of say treasury has on defence I don't know what does", sums it up perfectly.

 

[Rob c]

Im pretty sure there was a paper (cant remember which one?) that prioritised army as it would be cheaper to maintain a depolyable capability as it was not so technologically complex as the other services and their capabilities. And if that doesn't sum up the NZ govt attitude toward defence and the amount of say treasury has on defence i don't know what does.

I remember something about sutch a paper, written in the late 1990's by someone in treasury and have always felt that treasury have had too much influence in defence. My point I would ask of these treasury officers who write recommendations on defence is what knowledge , training or education did they have on the strategic or tactical implications of their recommendations or decisions did they have?
I would suspect that it was zero.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The 2009 report referenced above should be mandatory reading by anyone involved in politics in NZ. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see how wasteful defence procurement has been. Missing from this report is the folly of the C130 upgrade and how taking the 8 Js at the time of the Ozzy purchase would have saved millions over time and afforded the RNZAF the opportunity to align their replacements with Oz. Oh how hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Todjaeger]

I started this in my post 4775. My question remains, has resource allocation ever been discussed by defence planners.
You have to stay with the general proposition that there seems to be an imbalance with regard to NZ’s strategic circumstance.
If the discussion ends up with specifics ie this or that should be cut to fund the other then everyone has a strong opinion.
The strategic planners in the military and government are responsible for setting the priorities and my question was, have these priorities ever been challenged by the various parties, if not, where is the supporting evidence to leave things as they are.
The quantum of funds is one discussion, their allocation within the Defence Force is what I’m asking.

I suspect a significant part of the problem lies with the sea-blindness which both the average Kiwi, as well as most political and governmental Kiwis, seem to have.

I do believe the problem is exacerbated by the degree to which policy and decision-makers focus on lowest costing options (penny-wise, pound foolish IMO) as well as taking certain routes to "be a good international citizen" which IMO was more about the appearance than substance.

 

[Catalina]

Thank you all for your discussion on our new defence budget. Very sad to see the National Party attempt to sabotage the budget with a tanks vs teachers debate.

From this budget may I ask please, including the 'hidden in supplementary estimates' referred to by milliGal above:

1. What percentage increase has our NZDF received?

2. What percentage of our GDP now is defence spending?

3. Where can one read of the defence force hidden in supplementary estimates?

Thank you all.
Catalina

 

[milliGal]

Thank you all for your discussion on our new defence budget. Very sad to see the National Party attempt to sabotage the budget with a tanks vs teachers debate.

From this budget may I ask please, including the 'hidden in supplementary estimates' referred to by milliGal above:

1. What percentage increase has our NZDF received?

2. What percentage of our GDP now is defence spending?

3. Where can one read of the defence force hidden in supplementary estimates?

Thank you all.
Catalina

Hi @Catalina .

Janes did a brief summary article on the defence spending in this budget, and according to them it has increased by 23% compared to last year. A pretty sizeable boost!

According to stats NZ, GDP was $293B last year, and is projected to grow 2.8% this year, so defence spending of $5.06B for the current year will amount to ~1.7% of GDP (compared to ~1.4% last year).

And you can read the budget yourself by following the relevant links on the official budget website (www.budget.govt.nz). You can view the detailed spending documents by a variety of different classifications under the estimates section. I warn you it can be pretty dry reading, I only gave it a quick skim.

 

[Xthenaki]

Hi @Catalina .

Janes did a brief summary article on the defence spending in this budget, and according to them it has increased by 23% compared to last year. A pretty sizeable boost!

According to stats NZ, GDP was $293B last year, and is projected to grow 2.8% this year, so defence spending of $5.06B for the current year will amount to ~1.7% of GDP (compared to ~1.4% last year).

And you can read the budget yourself by following the relevant links on the official budget website (www.budget.govt.nz). You can view the detailed spending documents by a variety of different classifications under the estimates section. I warn you it can be pretty dry reading, I only gave it a quick skim.

Well the first milestone has passed and we have received the above in our latest budget. The next milestone - either the updated Defence Capability Plan or the acquisition of the replacements for the Tactical Hercules transports.is AWAITED. With the DCP if deployments overseas that we are currently involved with are to be reduced could that mean that our strategy for defence could move closer to home - South China Sea to the Pacific Islands. In this case a third frigate or earlier commencement to our eventual new frigate procurement could run in conjunction with our present frigates over a long period. This could mean deferring the proposed SOP but not indefinitely.

 

[MrConservative]

Hi @Catalina .

Janes did a brief summary article on the defence spending in this budget, and according to them it has increased by 23% compared to last year. A pretty sizeable boost!

According to stats NZ, GDP was $293B last year, and is projected to grow 2.8% this year, so defence spending of $5.06B for the current year will amount to ~1.7% of GDP (compared to ~1.4% last year).

And you can read the budget yourself by following the relevant links on the official budget website (www.budget.govt.nz). You can view the detailed spending documents by a variety of different classifications under the estimates section. I warn you it can be pretty dry reading, I only gave it a quick skim.

The Janes article was based on earlier pre-budget information discovered by the Opposition which was not 100% accurate and presented differently in the real budget. There was not an extra at $1.3 Billion for Cap Ex this year but $2.3 Billion will be spent over 3 years with only $740m ish in Cap Ex in FY19/20 up around $300m to basically road start the P-8.

Total defence vote for MoD, Vets and NZDF is Gross $4.1B not $5.06B. This would adjust the GDP spend ratio down.

 

[Rob c]

I think it was in Peter Greener's Timing Is Everything - The Politics and Processes of New Zealand Defence Acquisition Decision Making. I thoroughly recommend it and can be downloaded for free from the link, or a hard copy can be bought. I think that your last sentence: "if that doesn't sum up the NZ govt attitude toward defence and the amount of say treasury has on defence I don't know what does", sums it up perfectly.

I have been reading through "Timing Is Everything " and was struck by the 1990's poll on defence spending quoted in the book and how this has changed in the intervening years.
------------------------------------------ 1990 poll -------------------------------2017 poll
Increase spending ----------------- 12% ------------------------------------31%
Remain the same ------------------ 38% ------------------------------------39%
Decrease spending---------------- 31%------------------------------------- 19%
Undecided--------------------------- 19% ------------------------------------- 11%
The big changes have been in the increase spending and the undecided, I know that the Labour party was considering decreased capital spending prior to the last election, but NZF stopped that for the moment. I don't think that the pollies have recognised the change in public attitude yet or don't want to. It almost appears as if a large proportion of the undecided may have been leaning towards an increase, but due to the prevailing climate at the time where reluctant to express themselves.

 

[Rob c]

Total defence vote for MoD, Vets and NZDF is Gross $4.1B not $5.06B. This would adjust the GDP spend ratio down.

Unfortunately approximately 40% of this will be depreciation and capital charge. I don't know the exact figure but it ranges between 40 and 44% on a year to year basis.

 

[htbrst]

A titbit from Ron Mark at the Shangri-La Dialogue:

Ron Mark confirms the Govt will publicly reveal its Defence Capability Plan on June 11 - also an announcement on tactical airlift (ie Herc replacements) within a week or so. #SLD19 @asianewzealand

Sam Sachdeva on Twitter

That was from a Q+A Session tweeted by a NZ journalist at the conference. Ron Marks actual speech is online on the conference website: https://www.iiss.org/-/media/files/.../ron-mark-plenary-6-speech---as-prepared.ashx

 

[Redlands18]

I have been reading through "Timing Is Everything " and was struck by the 1990's poll on defence spending quoted in the book and how this has changed in the intervening years.
------------------------------------------ 1990 poll -------------------------------2017 poll
Increase spending ----------------- 12% ------------------------------------31%
Remain the same ------------------ 38% ------------------------------------39%
Decrease spending---------------- 31%------------------------------------- 29%
Undecided--------------------------- 19% ------------------------------------- 11%
The big changes have been in the increase spending and the undecided, I know that the Labour party was considering decreased capital spending prior to the last election, but NZF stopped that for the moment. I don't think that the pollies have recognised the change in public attitude yet or don't want to. It almost appears as if a large proportion of the undecided may have been leaning towards an increase, but due to the prevailing climate at the time where reluctant to express themselves.

Slight problem with the Poll figures the 2017 Poll figures, comes to 110%.

 

[Todjaeger]

Unfortunately approximately 40% of this will be depreciation and capital charge. I don't know the exact figure but it ranges between 40 and 44% on a year to year basis.

IIRC having looked at the year after year Vote Defence numbers for some time, between the Capital Charge and GST, the budget has actually been between 65% - 70% of the published figure, in real terms.

When examining the spend amounts for operations, in service personnel, maintenance, upgrades and new kit, that percentage shrinks further from the published budget, again in real terms, as some of the funding is directed to areas which do not contribute to Defence. As MrC mentioned in post #4792, the total appears to be NZD$4.1 bil. for the MoD, NZDF, and Veterans. Where it can get a bit sticky (especially with some of the more partisan/anti-Defence people) is that for those who are opposed to Defence for whatever reason, can and do point to that NZD$4.1 bil. figure and argue that Defence is getting a large enough or perhaps too large a share of NZ's treasure, when the reality is that the actual amount available to spend on Defence activitities which secure NZ and her interests is actually quite a bit smaller.

If MrC's figure is accurate, and the current ratio of funding in real terms is roughly the same as what it had been in the past, then that NZD$4.1 bil. figure suddenly becomes much closer to NZD$2.6 bil. in terms of funding actually spent defending and securing NZ, as well as sustaining the ability of NZ to defend itself, for a given year.

I suspect the general populace would be a bit less content with things remaining where they are, and/or a bit less undecided, if they were to realize how much less is actually being spent.

 

[Rob c]

Slight problem with the Poll figures the 2017 Poll figures, comes to 110%.

Sorry bad memory, Old timers disease setting in. However the total of, remain the same and increase the spend was in the high 60's to 70% mark. I think I over stated the reduce figure by 10%.

 

[Catalina]

Ron Marks actual speech is online on the conference website

Thank you for the link of our Defence Ministers speech htbrst.

Very pleased to hear his words reinforcing our Pacific Reset. Like the previous commentators above I strongly support the growth of our Navy to achieve those goals.

"In many ways the Pacific region is where New Zealand matters most and can have a more positive impact. It is our neighbourhood, and where we most certainly act locally. Through our Strategic Defence Policy Statement, we raised the priority placed on our Defence Force’s ability to operate in the Pacific to the same level as New Zealand’s territory, the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. Later this month I will unveil a plan to grow our Defence Force capability and capacity to project and sustain operations throughout the Pacific region. This is crucial – because our maritime domain spans nine percent of the Earth’s surface. Stretching from the Antarctic to the equator." -
Hon Ron Mark

 

[shanes_world_05]

This probably won't be popular but as a thought experiment - should the navy do away with frigates? I am looking at the still myopic public opinion, politician need for PR points at every turn and our ocean going trade reliance and the lack of escorts and wonder if there is a smarter way. I'm thinking that our economy hangs on 800 merchant ships and 6000 port visits on an average year for that 97% ocean going trade dependence. So even for a limited war in a sea lane we rely on we would need more than 2 escorts to keep even a fraction of that protected. So say if we ditched the frigates and went with something like the Absalons but 6-8x to replace Canterbury, the OPV's, frigates and scale them ala the Italian PPA project but via stanflex and millennium guns. But on the face of it to joe public and the rapid dissenters in the Astro turf party it appears to appease the no combat capability desire but if prepared properly could lead to an overall increase in capability across a range of roles. Better HADR response, more escorts, larger number of VLS, more helicopter hangars, simplified training and spares pool, easier logistics. If the 24knot top speed is a turnoff adopt the Jim Dorschner concept and add a hull plug of 14m and add another row of MTU's. Contract OMT and a korean yard and there's the concept.