NZDF General discussion thread

[Aerojoe]

Hypothetically of course ... if an ACF was re-established I think opposition to it would be muted in light of the recent PLA(N) deployment, because that deployment won't be the last one in our region. So it would have populist support and the Opposition can bark away but it will have little impact at the end of the day.

As for the cost ... perhaps lease the aircraft (like we intended to do with the F-16's originally). Hence why some advocate for utilising second-hand aircraft for the initial training and learning period. No CapEx, no depreciation and no capital charge! Sure the long term goal would be to buy something advanced and fit-for-purpose.

Another option could be simply leasing or purchasing a training/light combat type like the FA-50 or M-346 (something proven and in service). But again in light of the recent PLA(N) deployment it might now be regarded as not good enough (or survivable enough) ... but there would still be a need for a LIFT type anyway.

LIFT and/or leasing a combat type should be achieveable within an "up to" 2% gdp budget.

The biggest problem may be getting enough pilots in those intitial first few years, either new or existing transferring from other types, creating gaps in the other operational squadrons. But perhaps that could be alleviated by enticing experienced pilots back to fill those operational gaps?

Training could be provided by external providers and their knowledge would be invaluble.

Look I know, this could be "fantasy" and I appreciate the alternative points other people have made here recently that it could wiser to simply invest further in existing platforms (and with supplementary unmanned capabilities). I don't think there are right or wrong views, it is always good to read other people's thoughts and especially when they take the time to put a lot of thought into it.

Another area to explore, I think Aussie Digger brought it up last year or so, was whether to acquire EW/emission killing capabilities (like Growler or another type). Then perhaps let that complement the P-8's which could carry the ship-killing muntions. If so, fantasy or a practical and affordable alternative to take the fight to (i.e. deter) a powerful adversary operating in our region?

I think the statement that there would be little public opposition is rather optimistic. If you asked the people of Dunedin whether they would prefer to reestablish a ACF or have the public hospital they believe they are entitled to, I think the answer is predictable and fairly obvious. If you were to ask the general public on Queen St, which do you think is a better investment for NZ - another couple of P8 (and the modest increase in personnel) plus missiles, or a new ACF with significant increase in personnel, training and maintenance costs - I'd be happy to bet my house on the answer.

 

[Xthenaki]

I share your empathy for the people of Dunedin and the whole southern area with their need for a decent public hospital. But what is being talked about here is the need to have an effective defence force to assist in defending our sovereign nation. While both Health and Defence are absolutely in need of additional funding we have to look at the most effective way we use additional defence spending because the increase to around 2 pc of GDP that the govt is mooting will still be insufficient in the short term. Wanton waste spending by Western governments seems to be the order of the day especially has been in NZ.

 

[Aerojoe]

I share your empathy for the people of Dunedin and the whole southern area with their need for a decent public hospital. But what is being talked about here is the need to have an effective defence force to assist in defending our sovereign nation. While both Health and Defence are absolutely in need of additional funding we have to look at the most effective way we use additional defence spending because the increase to around 2 pc of GDP that the govt is mooting will still be insufficient in the short term. Wanton waste spending by Western governments seems to be the order of the day especially has been in NZ.

I'm not denying the need to lift defence spending - I spent too long in Canberra and Washington at the sharp end of criticism from our 'friends' to be so naive to think the status quo is alright. What I'm questioning is the statement that re-establishing an ACF won't face significant push back in the electorate.
As much as I may wish that the Clarke government hadn't cancelled the F16 and fantasise about an RNZAF with a modern ACF it is simply that - fantasy. The rationalist that I am accepts that even with a 2% of GDP spend (which is not a slam dunk in the electorate regardless of what this forum may think) there will still be internal trade-offs. For politicians presenting to the NZ electorate, foregoing (in the minds of most NZers it's not a sacrifice as it doesn't exist) an ACF is easy if the alternate is better conditions of service and better personnel retention, more P8's, more capable naval force (including a southern ocean capability) or any number of defence items that can be spun as improving defence and capabilities like HADR. As much as we may all hate it, ACF is likely seen in the electorate as an expensive luxury. Even between the services I imagine there is debate about the real need for ACF.

 

[Xthenaki]

Fair comment. Your alternative is a Defence priority and has to be addressed now. The ACF reinstatement will always be subject to robust debate and will only be an option when it is given majority support and adequate funding. The naval replacements will take time to evolve and hopefully that will be explained on release of the upcoming defence review.

 

[Rob c]

I think the statement that there would be little public opposition is rather optimistic. If you asked the people of Dunedin whether they would prefer to reestablish a ACF or have the public hospital they believe they are entitled to, I think the answer is predictable and fairly obvious.

This would not be the way, Actually most defence capital funding is done by loans or paid off incrementally. A poll conducted 3 or 4 years back ask should we have an AFC and it got a positive over 70% yes. The point in question is, do you want to defend NZ or just paper over the cracks? If it is paper over the cracks then don't go for an ACF, which I suspect is were the government will go. An ACF is the logical choice if you really want to defend NZ as it gives the necessary quick all around coverage of both sea and air and has a significant deterrent effect.

 

[jbc388]

The upcoming defence capibility review will most likely just "paper over the cracks", leaving the major issues unanswered!! I am really hoping that this government has had it's a@#$ kicked by the Chinese ships and probable sub!! in the last 2 weeks being so close to NZ. will result in some well thought out answers to the major problems/issues the NZDF have!!
2 x Frigates just can't cope having to in multiple places at once!!
4 x P-8's again too few in number!! plus not even usefull in the anti surface warfare side of things with no antiship missiles!!

 

[recce.k1]

I think the statement that there would be little public opposition is rather optimistic.

In this day and age I still stand by my belief. And you still stand by your belief. Which is great, it makes for good debate, so let's agree to disagree.

If you asked the people of Dunedin whether they would prefer to reestablish a ACF or have the public hospital they believe they are entitled to, I think the answer is predictable and fairly obvious.

You may very well be right. But it's also a red-herring, one can grab example X and compare with example Y and never the twain shall meet. At the end of the day the GOTD spent $180b during the last financial year so there are no shortage of funds for many important things that Kiwi's require. The cost of the Dunedin hospital rebuild project is currently $1.88b so it's a happening thing.

Vote Health is $30b, Vote Education is $20b, whereas Vote Defence is $5b or 10% of Health and Education. Yes everyone wants more/needs more, absolutely. But defence funding settings were designed to increase when there is a need, that's the 1980's/90's "neo-liberal" reforms in action for better or worse, it also meant when where there wasn't a need then defence funding was reduced, well it's pay back time for defence now according to the system architecture. So how best to invest, is the question. DCP will provide some answers.

If you were to ask the general public on Queen St, which do you think is a better investment for NZ - another couple of P8 (and the modest increase in personnel) plus missiles, or a new ACF with significant increase in personnel, training and maintenance costs - I'd be happy to bet my house on the answer.

I'll wager a bet that next to no-one (ok maybe one or two) would know what a P-8 was! All kidding aside I understand what you are saying and I am in agreement. The first priority is to improve what one has now, before moving on to other "nice-to-haves".