So with the DefMin calling for more investment (can't recall previous DefMin's doing the same for many a decade now?), presumably she is reflecting Govt thinking (ditto with their support Party's defence spokesman doing so last week and now their Party leader reaffirming that) it is signalling changes are in the making (well at least there will be cross-party support if that happens).
The other interesting signal is the mention of the need to have greater"lethality". I think rather than going down the path of "talk is cheap" let's have a discussion of what this could mean. There are many commentators here with knowledge of the particular Services and how they are organised, so what could be some realistic options?
My thoughts are greater investment will be a longer (or medium-longer) term strategy so in the mean time (short to medium term) investment could mean growing personnel numbers (recruitment, re-enlistment etc), as well as infrastructure and support etc, therefore building upon existing capabilities, either by adding mass and/or incremental upgrades to kit. This would provide some "concurrency" (that Defence talks about needing) to provide better presence now that the NZG is focusing on the likes of South Korea, Japan, Philippines etc, in addition to traditional linkages with Australia, Singapore, US efforts in the Gulf/Indo-Pacific and of course our South Pacific and Southern Ocean/continent commitments etc.
So if the adage is along the lines of one fights with what they already have then presumably that means equipping existing capabilities "better", seeking new replacement capabilities (which is where the longer term investments come into the picture) and hopefully some new capabilities (or ahem, at least restored capabilities).
Realistically NZ cannot afford to have the breadth that our Trans-Tasman neighbours have, but at the very least it can "plug in" where deemed practical (and usually it is planned betwen both countries to do so) and have enough mass to provide at least some resilience when the pressure comes on.
The other area where NZ could assist with in the wider allied picture is covering the flank so-to-speak, as well, (eg South Pacific and Southern Ocean) so that ADF resources can be primarily tasked with Indo-Pac operations without having to divert (or minimise the need to do so) precious capabilities that would be better employed elsewhere. In this scenario it could mean improved ISR capabilities in the maritime/space/air domain with the ability to call upon local combat equipped resources (even if "second tier") if and when required (noting that planning will be an allied colaborative effort anyway).
Anyway these are some random thoughts from myself as a random commentator (who has no particular insight into anything)!
However I will end this with the words from the Chief of Defence Force at last December's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee meeting.
The DCP will—when decisions are made about that and that’s released, we’ll be able to share more of that with you. I think part of it, though, is to make sure we have a recruiting system, a mobilisation system, a reserve system where we can quickly expand our numbers when required, as we did during previous major conflicts that New Zealand’s been involved in. It’s not just about starting that growth pattern now but making sure that we can accelerate that when and if required.
My conclusion is Defence and Government are taking things really seriously, to expand (mind you one wouldn't think so on forums of course).
But which pathways will be made public (and funded) in the DCP? And what other pathways won't be made public but are there sitting quietly ready to go if the international situation requires it?
