NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Stuart Mackey]

Why did they not consider a mass resignation in order to get their point across when the air combat forces was decided to be disbanded, I mean if everyone in the New Zealand armed forces from the rank of colonel up just resigned in protest of the Labour government's policies, then that should perhaps raise enough eyebrows to get the top brass what they want, or how about a mass resignation of say 80 to 90 per cent of the officers.

They do not do so because that would undermine civillian control of the armed forces. The armed forces do not dictate policy in NZ, the politians do, and they are elected with a particular mandate.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I do not know about that because that range would give you about a 2.2 billion dollar budget for 2005, which is quite alot, for example, Sweden which has double New Zealand's budget at that level of 2.2 billion currently maintains 100 Gripen Cs and Ds, so having that amount of 2.2 would enable the RNZAF to buy 20 F-16 Block 52s I think, or to maintain a force of 35 to 40 F-16 Block 52s if it had that level of defence spending as a percentage of GDP ever since say the 1950s.

Thats nice, but its kind of irrelivant given the history of NZDF funding[lack of} over the last 4 decades and the damage its done.

I think New Zealand's allies will understand it if it does not have a very impressive military since the size of its economy is quite small, what people like me are complaining about is that New Zealand refuses to punch at its weight, rather than it not ordering 100 F-35 Lightning IIs.

New Zealand decides what 'weight' we are able to punch at, not other nations. Who are you say otherwise?

 

[ren0312]

Thats nice, but its kind of irrelivant given the history of NZDF funding[lack of} over the last 4 decades and the damage its done.



New Zealand decides what 'weight' we are able to punch at, not other nations. Who are you say otherwise?

Don't say I did not warn you, of course, you can always offer the PLAN a navy base in New Zealand to ensure your sea lanes security if your public decides on a purely peacekeeping oriented armed forces, just think "Warsaw Pact".

 

[ren0312]

I did email Murray McCully about this issue, and im glad he took me seriously.!!! Anyways, i dont find it interesting that they (Nat) have brought it up when Nationals agenda has been in the past to restablish the strike combat force. He wont get much out of it now, but he will be deadly serious about it when they get back into power. The sooner the better.

By the way, how do I get in touch with Murray Mccully?

 

[Sea Toby]

Here is a link to the New Zealand Ministry of Defence Air Combat Review of 2001.
http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/air-combat/air-combat-force.html
Here is a link to the Quigley F-16 Review:
http://www.executive.govt.nz/f16/review10.htm

The Quigley review recommended acquiring fewer F-16s, not eliminate the air combat force. The air combat review was orchestrated by another government. Since the lease of the F-16s were very favorable, the previous government chose to lease all of the available cream puff F-16s.

Furthermore, the savings of not leasing the F-16s, not operating the air combat force, and not acquiring a third frigate are the funds the new government used to acquire most of the expensive items on the LTDP: the LAVIIIs, the LOHs, and Project Protector. In simplier terms, the air combat force was cut to pay for new Army vehicles, the frigate was cut to pay for Project Protector. Not until the new government's third term did it spend any new funds for the expected Huey/Sioux helicopter replacement.

On the other hand the new government did develop a LTDP showing priority needs and costs, a well thought out plan.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I do not know about that because that range would give you about a 2.2 billion dollar budget for 2005, which is quite alot, for example, Sweden which has double New Zealand's budget at that level of 2.2 billion currently maintains 100 Gripen Cs and Ds, so having that amount of 2.2 would enable the RNZAF to buy 20 F-16 Block 52s I think, or to maintain a force of 35 to 40 F-16 Block 52s if it had that level of defence spending as a percentage of GDP ever since say the 1950s. I think New Zealand's allies will understand it if it does not have a very impressive military since the size of its economy is quite small, what people like me are complaining about is that New Zealand refuses to punch at its weight, rather than it not ordering 100 F-35 Lightning IIs.

Well I understand your sentiments, and agree New Zealand should spend more money on defence, I feel that all this talk of buying fighters to make sure NZ punches its weight is a bit narrow.

In the region NZ forces do a lot to keep the peace and are currently deployed in East Timor and the Solomon’s. The days where the US and Australia made an issue of NZ punching its weight are pretty much over, in official circles at least. This is a result of NZ deployments to Iraq (now over), the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan.

Yes NZ does not spend enough on defence, but to see anything over 1.6%-1.8% in the next decade, with the current strategic environment is just not going to happen. Even Australia only spends 1.9% and will have a hard time in the next decade keeping all the projects together.

 

[Whiskyjack]

The issue is that a large amount of New Zealanders are simply ignorant of defence matters and almost always have been. Most here do not seem to realise that our overall prosperity, the cheap cars our teenagers soup up, the PS2 the kids want for christmas, our jobs, even the very roofs over our heads are dependent on the peace and prosperity of the world outside the South Pacific. This attitude should have died a natural death in the late 19th century when the first shipload of frozen sheep meat went to Britain, but we cannot shake the one dimentional veiw of defence matters, that of immediate territorial defence.
It does not help that those who support a credible defence force have not exactly been articulate in defending their ideas, but that is a debate for another thread methinks.

NZ defence debate is concentrated on platforms and money IMO.
It is strange that polls show NZer's as supporting a strong defence force and yet can show the majority as against the purchase of frigates and fighters when the $$ are apparent.

I think we all basically agree that Govt needs to conduct strategic reviews, decide where the National interest/need lies, give the NZDF the review to base its structure on and then fund it (and that will never be enough IMO).

The problem I have is while the Govt will argue that is what it has done, I can't see how the current NZDF orientations fits the strategic context as I see it.

Where it grows complicated is that most of us will agree on this, but see the strategic context differently from what I do, which will lead to different structure, that includes factions within the NZDF, MoD and political parties..

So the small amount of people that are interested can’t agree, so how do you get the public to buy into a factionalised debate? Especially when the media report 1% of it if you are lucky.

This all makes it easier for the Govt to do what it wants to do, rightly or wrongly.

My opinion any way.

 

[Markus40]

I think most people will agree that media does have an influence on the matters of defence due to the relationship of our nuclear free policies. There is this NZ ideology that defence is somewhat rooted into anti nuclear, and when you discuss it, its like "dont talk to me about it".

This by enlarge is supported and encouraged by our friends in the Green party, and Defence is another lever to get the topic going . Its a very narrow minded and isolationist view point, when Defence should be the top of any governments agenda.

Also the media do like to concentrate their angle on the minority, and in the past anti Nuclear movement has clouded peoples understanding on Defence to some extent because what we might purchase or have is a Nuclear defence force. So it would be interesting to see what people think through a referendum as you suggested and see what comes of it.

I understand this is what Don Brash wants to do when National do get into power. I find the greatest argument on Defence and whether NZ should have one is based upon the need to have it due to the fact we have no immediate enemies surrounding us, and their is no immediate threat from the sea. So why consider it. But they are forgetting of course that our Defence obligations lay outside of NZ in a coalition with Australia as our main defence ally, as well as securing our sea lanes in SEA. We are now seeing that NZ has been handed more responsibility with the South Pacific and given Australia more hands on approach in SEA.

There is a lot of divided opinion, yes, but i think most people do agree that Frigates and Fighters and Army are at the core of any Defence arrangement.

NZ defence debate is concentrated on platforms and money IMO.
It is strange that polls show NZer's as supporting a strong defence force and yet can show the majority as against the purchase of frigates and fighters when the $$ are apparent.

I think we all basically agree that Govt needs to conduct strategic reviews, decide where the National interest/need lies, give the NZDF the review to base its structure on and then fund it (and that will never be enough IMO).

The problem I have is while the Govt will argue that is what it has done, I can't see how the current NZDF orientations fits the strategic context as I see it.

Where it grows complicated is that most of us will agree on this, but see the strategic context differently from what I do, which will lead to different structure, that includes factions within the NZDF, MoD and political parties..

So the small amount of people that are interested can’t agree, so how do you get the public to buy into a factionalised debate? Especially when the media report 1% of it if you are lucky.

This all makes it easier for the Govt to do what it wants to do, rightly or wrongly.

My opinion any way.

 

[Markus40]

I think the government will need to spend more than the 2% GDP over the next 10 years if we are to see changes within our structure keep pace. As you have suggested that it wont take place, the government might not have a choice, considering the effort thats still needed to keep modernising our defense forces. As National will lead the country in a different "light" from its current form, i believe that its likely that they will put "more teeth" back into the Tiger. I am hoping so.

Well I understand your sentiments, and agree New Zealand should spend more money on defence, I feel that all this talk of buying fighters to make sure NZ punches its weight is a bit narrow.

In the region NZ forces do a lot to keep the peace and are currently deployed in East Timor and the Solomon’s. The days where the US and Australia made an issue of NZ punching its weight are pretty much over, in official circles at least. This is a result of NZ deployments to Iraq (now over), the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan.

Yes NZ does not spend enough on defence, but to see anything over 1.6%-1.8% in the next decade, with the current strategic environment is just not going to happen. Even Australia only spends 1.9% and will have a hard time in the next decade keeping all the projects together.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I think the government will need to spend more than the 2% GDP over the next 10 years if we are to see changes within our structure keep pace. As you have suggested that it wont take place, the government might not have a choice, considering the effort thats still needed to keep modernising our defense forces. As National will lead the country in a different "light" from its current form, i believe that its likely that they will put "more teeth" back into the Tiger. I am hoping so.

If it becomes an issue of national interest then of course more than 2% will be spent.

If the present circumstances continue (which looks likely over the next 10 years) then I doubt you will see Defence going above 1.4% of GDP, and it will more likely be 1%-1.2%. Bearing in mind that defence is now at .9%.

I don't make that statement lightly that comes from talking to a lot of people in the know from all sides. On this issue I am more than happy to be wrong

 

[Sea Toby]

During the previous government's reign they cut defence spending, cashing in a peace dividend New Zealand is still paying for. Delayed purchases of frigates, APCs, and LOHs, utility helicopters, and tactical radios, the only large expenditures were for the air combat force, new trainers and finally leased cream puff F-16s during their last year. The new government erased their expenditures quickly, cancelling the F-16s and selling off the air combat force. Therefore, the previous government appears to have accomplished nothing for defence during their rule.

As I noted before the current government really hasn't increased defence spending, its mostly buying new equipment at the expense of a third frigate and the air combat force. Obviously, the two parties have different priorities for defence. Unfortunately the previous government party has not been able to turn the table, and it won't with its vague defence policy of 2005.

I don't see any more major defence expenditures until its time to replace the Orions and Hercules aircrafts late in the next decade. At that time either a lease for new aircrafts or an increase in capital spending will occur. I do not see with the current budget how these aircraft will be replaced with new ones otherwise.

 

[KH-12]

If it becomes an issue of national interest then of course more than 2% will be spent.

If the present circumstances continue (which looks likely over the next 10 years) then I doubt you will see Defence going above 1.4% of GDP, and it will more likely be 1%-1.2%. Bearing in mind that defence is now at .9%.

I don't make that statement lightly that comes from talking to a lot of people in the know from all sides. On this issue I am more than happy to be wrong

I can't see any possiblity of Defence spending getting anything close to the 2% level unless there was a dramatic change in the international situation that impinged on our continued security , as long as you have a public health system that is in crisis and sick people are turned away from public hospitals the chances of a nice new shiney Sqn of JSF is never going to happen, planning for a remote untangiable possibility will not be overly popular at election time when things are not exactly rosy in areas that the average New Zealander experiences on a day to day basis.

Now if for example a large offshore oil resource was discovered (a definate possibility) then the perceived need to provide protection to that resource would suddenly make a higher level of defence spending alot more palatable to the general public.

 

[Lucasnz]

During the previous government's reign they cut defence spending, cashing in a peace dividend New Zealand is still paying for. Delayed purchases of frigates, APCs, and LOHs, utility helicopters, and tactical radios, the only large expenditures were for the air combat force, new trainers and finally leased cream puff F-16s during their last year. The new government erased their expenditures quickly, cancelling the F-16s and selling off the air combat force. Therefore, the previous government appears to have accomplished nothing for defence during their rule.

As I noted before the current government really hasn't increased defence spending, its mostly buying new equipment at the expense of a third frigate and the air combat force. Obviously, the two parties have different priorities for defence. Unfortunately the previous government party has not been able to turn the table, and it won't with its vague defence policy of 2005.

I don't see any more major defence expenditures until its time to replace the Orions and Hercules aircrafts late in the next decade. At that time either a lease for new aircrafts or an increase in capital spending will occur. I do not see with the current budget how these aircraft will be replaced with new ones otherwise.

Yes but you have to remember that when National took office they had to deal with a 5 billion cash deficit when they took office in the early 90's.

By the time they left office they had started most of the defence acquistion projects Labour went onto complete.

 

[ren0312]

I can't see any possiblity of Defence spending getting anything close to the 2% level unless there was a dramatic change in the international situation that impinged on our continued security , as long as you have a public health system that is in crisis and sick people are turned away from public hospitals the chances of a nice new shiney Sqn of JSF is never going to happen, planning for a remote untangiable possibility will not be overly popular at election time when things are not exactly rosy in areas that the average New Zealander experiences on a day to day basis.

Now if for example a large offshore oil resource was discovered (a definate possibility) then the perceived need to provide protection to that resource would suddenly make a higher level of defence spending alot more palatable to the general public.

It is needed not because New Zealand faces any immidiate threats to its existence, but because it needs a solid pwer projection capability in order to protects its interest in its near abroad, such as protecting its sea lanes in cooperation with its allies, or to take part in peacekeeping/peacemaking operations, I think that New Zealand really does not need to spend above 2.5 per cent rioght now, because although its military has been gutted due to decades of mismanagement, I think everyone understands that New Zealand's economy is not that large, and haence the process of rearmament from a paramilitary organization to a real military will take quite a while, and anyway, the threat of the PLAN is not a present danger, but more of a distant medium to long term danger, so New Zealand can afford to take its time in rearming itself, but it needs to start now.

 

[KH-12]

Yes but you have to remember that when National took office they had to deal with a 5 billion cash deficit when they took office in the early 90's.

By the time they left office they had started most of the defence acquistion projects Labour went onto complete.

This is a good point and leads on to the issue of the affordability of large defence capital acquistions when the New Zealand's Trade deficit continues to be a major issue to the economy. Unfortunately we don't have a significant indigenous defence industry such as Australia (apart from say SafeAir and the Tenix facility in Whangarei) therefore most money spent on defence equipment goes directly offshore with little benefit to the local economy, this may be acceptable when you are running a positive trade balance but is a hard one to stomach when the country is already spending more than it earns.

 

[ren0312]

This is a good point and leads on to the issue of the affordability of large defence capital acquistions when the New Zealand's Trade deficit continues to be a major issue to the economy. Unfortunately we don't have a significant indigenous defence industry such as Australia (apart from say SafeAir and the Tenix facility in Whangarei) therefore most money spent on defence equipment goes directly offshore with little benefit to the local economy, this may be acceptable when you are running a positive trade balance but is a hard one to stomach when the country is already spending more than it earns.

As far as I know, having a large trade/current account defecit is less serious problem than having a large budget defecit, because unlike a budget defecit which directly affect your country's finances by having to borrow once you encounter a budget defecit, thus raising your country's national debt, which will increase your interest payment, and this will lead to your country's credit rating being affected, this is not the case for a trade current account defecit, and as long as there are foreigners willing to sponsor your country's investment needs, for example by buying New Zealand government bonds, or buying property in New Zealand, or opening factories in New Zealand that is owned by a foreigner, then a trade/current account defecit really is not that big of a problem, the only problem occurs when the ability of foreingers to supply your country's investment needs dries up, this will force the savings rate to go up, or the investment rate to come down, this means lower consumption, which can lead to a sharp recession and a sharp increase in your currency's exchange rate, because a trade/current account defecit is simply a symptom of a low savings rate that is insufficient to fund your country's investment needs, hence your need to get funding from overseas, in order to make up for your lack of domestic saving.

 

[ren0312]

This is a good point and leads on to the issue of the affordability of large defence capital acquistions when the New Zealand's Trade deficit continues to be a major issue to the economy. Unfortunately we don't have a significant indigenous defence industry such as Australia (apart from say SafeAir and the Tenix facility in Whangarei) therefore most money spent on defence equipment goes directly offshore with little benefit to the local economy, this may be acceptable when you are running a positive trade balance but is a hard one to stomach when the country is already spending more than it earns.

As far as I know, having a large trade/current account defecit is less serious problem than having a large budget defecit, because unlike a budget defecit which directly affect your country's finances by having to borrow once you encounter a budget defecit, thus raising your country's national debt, which will increase your interest payment, and this will lead to your country's credit rating being affected, this is not the case for a trade current account defecit, and as long as there are foreigners willing to sponsor your country's investment needs, for example by buying New Zealand government bonds, or buying property in New Zealand, or opening factories in New Zealand that is owned by a foreigner, then a trade/current account defecit really is not that big of a problem, the only problem occurs when the ability of foreingers to supply your country's investment needs dries up, this will force the savings rate to go up, or the investment rate to come down, this means lower consumption, which can lead to a sharp recession and a sharp increase in your currency's exchange rate, because a trade/current account defecit is simply a symptom of a low savings rate that is insufficient to fund your country's investment needs, hence your need to get funding from overseas, in order to make up for your lack of domestic saving. If you have anymore problems with this topic, you can just ask your economics professor nyour the college or university that you have studied in, I sure he will be more than to explain this matetr to you.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Lets put defence spending into perspective here, as we seem to be focusing on new equipment.

If you split the operational budget into personnel and operational and divide by the number of regular personnel you get a basic idea of how much each person costs. This is all after GST and Capital Charge is taken out and based on the latest figures. For NZ in NZ$ you get the following:

• Personnel $68k per person
• Operational 52K pp
• Total 120K pp.

Then compare against Australia (in AUS$)

• Personnel $155K pp
• Operational $112k pp
• Total $267 pp

Now that is more than twice as much per person to run a fully functional defence force excluding capital!!!

Now I know that there will be areas that we do cheaper, cost of living and capabilities that NZ will not have such as Sub but is gives a good basic comparison.

So re introducing the strike force, extra frigate(s), and army capabilities and making sure the NZDF is properly staffed would take the total NZDF personnel from 8,500 to around 11,000 personnel IMO (the govt has already indicated an extra 1,500 are needed).

So if you take 11,000 and spend $220K pp (well under the Aus average) and you are up around 1.6% of GDP in operational spending alone, Australia spends around 30% of its budget on capital and you are looking at around 2.3% of GDP for the NZDF budget, around NZ$3.6b a year in current terms..

Now I realise that this is a rough comparison, with much room for error, but is does give an idea, esp. when I am sure many in the ADF would say not enough money is being spent now on retaining and attracting recruits, and the cost of capital is always more than planned as well.

These figures come from the latest budgets from both countries.

 

[Whiskyjack]

It is needed not because New Zealand faces any immidiate threats to its existence, but because it needs a solid pwer projection capability in order to protects its interest in its near abroad, such as protecting its sea lanes in cooperation with its allies, or to take part in peacekeeping/peacemaking operations, I think that New Zealand really does not need to spend above 2.5 per cent rioght now, because although its military has been gutted due to decades of mismanagement, I think everyone understands that New Zealand's economy is not that large, and haence the process of rearmament from a paramilitary organization to a real military will take quite a while, and anyway, the threat of the PLAN is not a present danger, but more of a distant medium to long term danger, so New Zealand can afford to take its time in rearming itself, but it needs to start now.

Well I agree with the 2.5%, you have to understand that it is just not going to happen. Even Australia only spends 1.9% and they have a greater public understanding and support of defence, as well as a much stronger economy and economic base. Canada is 1.2%.

I will also make a point that while you see the PLAN as threat to your sovereignty (with good justification), NZ does not.

As a trading partner China is a growing market.

 

[ren0312]

Lets put defence spending into perspective here, as we seem to be focusing on new equipment.

If you split the operational budget into personnel and operational and divide by the number of regular personnel you get a basic idea of how much each person costs. This is all after GST and Capital Charge is taken out and based on the latest figures. For NZ in NZ$ you get the following:

• Personnel $68k per person
• Operational 52K pp
• Total 120K pp.

Then compare against Australia (in AUS$)

• Personnel $155K pp
• Operational $112k pp
• Total $267 pp

Now that is more than twice as much per person to run a fully functional defence force excluding capital!!!

Now I know that there will be areas that we do cheaper, cost of living and capabilities that NZ will not have such as Sub but is gives a good basic comparison.

So re introducing the strike force, extra frigate(s), and army capabilities and making sure the NZDF is properly staffed would take the total NZDF personnel from 8,500 to around 11,000 personnel IMO (the govt has already indicated an extra 1,500 are needed).

So if you take 11,000 and spend $220K pp (well under the Aus average) and you are up around 1.6% of GDP in operational spending alone, Australia spends around 30% of its budget on capital and you are looking at around 2.3% of GDP for the NZDF budget, around NZ$3.6b a year in current terms..

Now I realise that this is a rough comparison, with much room for error, but is does give an idea, esp. when I am sure many in the ADF would say not enough money is being spent now on retaining and attracting recruits, and the cost of capital is always more than planned as well.

These figures come from the latest budgets from both countries.

I have one question, what if you acquire them a little bit of a time so you can spread out the cost over a number of years, which means that instead of armeing all of the frigates with Harpoons next year, you can just arm one frigate with a Harpoon one year, and arm the next one the next year,thus reducing the cost per year for acquisitions per year because you are spreading them out over a longer period of time, are you saying that those cost that you mention are not for acquisition cost, but how much it would cost to run the armed forces with those kind of capabilities, which means even if those assets are in place already and you do not have to pay for the cost of buying those new assets because New Zealand already has them, you would just pay for the cost of keeping them operational those assets, plus the cost for personel, and the total would still run up to 2.3 per cent of GDP? In that case maybe New Zealand is better of having like 14 F-16's and 11 MB339s instead in order to have the budget fit under the cap of 2.5 per cent of GDP a year.