NZDF - Now and the Future.

[ren0312]

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.

Well Canada is 1.2 at present, but I think it will rise to nearly 2 per cent eventually if the spending plans under Harper do take hold, and his government does not get oevrthrown in the next election, or be brought down prematurely through a no confidence vote.

 

[Whiskyjack]

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.

yes but equipment must be upgraded, replaced etc and that is where the capital budget must remain constant to keep it operational. The main point I am trying to get accross is that defence is a costly business and what the potential cost will be to NZ. It does not take into consideration that the Australian's have a stronger $ for example.

14 F-16s is not a deployable option IMO. It is a place holder, which is also an option.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Well Canada is 1.2 at present, but I think it will rise to nearly 2 per cent eventually if the spending plans under Harper do take hold, and his government does not get oevrthrown in the next election, or be brought down prematurely through a no confidence vote.

I can't see it, well they are spending more money, I think they will end up around 1.5%-1.6%, they are talking of reaching 20 billion by the end of the decade, Australia is a third their size and is basically there now!

 

[ren0312]

yes but equipment must be upgraded, replaced etc and that is where the capital budget must remain constant to keep it operational. The main point I am trying to get accross is that defence is a costly business and what the potential cost will be to NZ. It does not take into consideration that the Australian's have a stronger $ for example.

14 GF-16s is not a deployable option IMO. It is a place holder, which is also an option.

OK, so I think I get what you are sayng, you are saying that even if New Zealand had all of these assets like strike fighters and frigates with Harpoons already, and you would not have to buy them all in one go which is the situation right now, it would still cost 2.3 per cent just to keep those in place and upgrade them, that is what you were saying right?

 

[Whiskyjack]

OK, so I think I get what you are sayng, you are saying that even if New Zealand had all of these assets like strike fighters and frigates with Harpoons already, and you would not have to buy them all in one go which is the situation right now, it would still cost 2.3 per cent just to keep those in place and upgrade them, that is what you were saying right?

Yes. Around that figure maybe more or maybe less, as it would need a much more detailed analysis.

With the following qualifications, the equipment is top rate, maintained at that level e.g. F-16s block 52, 3-4 frigates, fully configured Orions, ISTAR capabilities including UAVs.

I am talking about being able to deploy forces to a medium high intensity conflict, in a meaningful way, so the abilioty to deploy and sustain a sqaudron etc..

 

[ren0312]

Yes. Around that figure maybe more or maybe less, as it would need a much more detailed analysis.

With the following qualifications, the equipment is top rate, maintained at that level e.g. F-16s block 52, 3-4 frigates, fully configured Orions, ISTAR capabilities including UAVs.

I am talking about being able to deploy forces to a medium high intensity conflict, in a meaningful way, so the abilioty to deploy and sustain a sqaudron etc..

OK, so in that case maybe you can reduece the number of F-16 Block 52s or just buy more F-16s, like Block 40s or MLU F-16s, anyway although an air combat wing is important and should exist, it is not really that urgently needed compared to say frigates with Harpoons or the other assets, so maybe a top of the line fighter is not necessary, and Block 52s are not necessary for the moment, they can just be upgraded to Block 52s or higher in the future, as far as I know Block 40 F-16s when supported by AWACs are still way superior to J-10s or Su-27s, and are equal to the Su-30 MKK, so they can still do.

 

[ren0312]

Yes. Around that figure maybe more or maybe less, as it would need a much more detailed analysis.

With the following qualifications, the equipment is top rate, maintained at that level e.g. F-16s block 52, 3-4 frigates, fully configured Orions, ISTAR capabilities including UAVs.

I am talking about being able to deploy forces to a medium high intensity conflict, in a meaningful way, so the abilioty to deploy and sustain a sqaudron etc..

I wonder if any of us here can come up with a conservative estimate of the kind of force that New Zealand can support at about 2.3 per cent of GDP. I guess it would still be able to amaintain the capabilities stated above, but it would have to lessen by a bit the number of Block 52s, to say 20 or have more, but have Block 40s instead of 52s, so it is really a question of quality over quantity or quantity over quality.

 

[Whiskyjack]

OK, so in that case maybe you can reduece the number of F-16 Block 52s or just buy more F-16s, like Block 40s or MLU F-16s, anyway although an air combat wing is important and should exist, it is not really that urgently needed compared to say frigates with Harpoons or the other assets, so maybe a top of the line fighter is not necessary, and Block 52s are not necessary for the moment, they can just be upgraded to Block 52s or higher in the future, as far as I know Block 40 F-16s when supported by AWACs are still way superior to J-10s or Su-27s, and are equal to the Su-30 MKK, so they can still do.

But now you are getting into technicalities my friend, yes of course you can make allowances and degrade the capability to save money, but at what point is a capability less essential? You still have to spend money on the personnel and operational side to keep them combat ready which is actually more expensive in terms of the above budget.

I wont get into platform capability debate because this is more of the strategic direction for the NZDF.

My overall point is that in a regional context of the South Pacific fighters are not of much value to NZ unless it buys the force multipliers to sortie them from NZ into the Pacific. And if it does what use will that be? That is my opinion and I have not seen it disproved yet.

Yes they can be deployed to coalition operations, but why would you deploy fighters you can't use in your own regional context, instead of ISTAR, ASW, Amphibious etc assets that you can use in your own region? Do you spend money on equipment that is of little use in your own environment at the expense of equipment that is?

Now I have an opinion obviously, but at the end of the day it is for the govt of NZ to decide after consultation with the voters.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

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".

Who said anything abou China having bases in NZ? oh, that right, no one.

I have to say, thats the most pitiful attempt at a strawman argument I have seen in a while, would you like to try again or would you prefer to try another dishonest debate tactic?

 

[ren0312]

Who said anything abou China having bases in NZ? oh, that right, no one.

I have to say, thats the most pitiful attempt at a strawman argument I have seen in a while, would you like to try again or would you prefer to try another dishonest debate tactic?

What I mean is that if New Zealand, and this goes for Australia too, refuses to cooperate with its allies in order to guarantee stability in the South China Sea, and to contain China if it decides to take a belligerent stance, then it would have to one day confront it at its own doorstep, i.e. in New Zealand waters itself, as for China having a base as far South as New Zealand, one cannot discount the possibility that China will not try to pull a stunt like that since its intention is to become a regional power and eventually challenge the US in the region, which means that it will have to establish a naval presence in the South Pacific eventually if it intends to challenge the US presence in the region, so a strong capability, along with the capability to project it into the South China is necessary in order to persuade China that not challenging the present balalnce of power in the Western Pacific is in its best interest, and this is where the strike forces and frigates can come in, as a deterrance to prevent any rash moves by China in the region. If China intends to establish a strong presence in the the South Pacific eventually, it will need to have bases there. If youn will lok at a map of the Pacific, you will notice the although Australia and New Zealand are considered part of the west, their geographical location means that they can easily be isolated if its lines of the communication with America were to cut by simply establising bases in the South Pacific islands that are near to that LOC, and I predict that this is what a country will try to do if it is attempting the absorb Austarlia and New Zealand within its sphere of influence, and as far as I know, China does consider the entire Western Pacific to be part of its near abrod so to speak, if China decides to challenge the US's status sometime in the future, it will first try to gain influence in the areas that are nearest to it, and Australia and New Zealand as included in this area, their Southern location in the Pacific notwithstanding. I must admit that the scenarios I discussed may sound farfetched right now, but what I am saying is that if New Zealand refuses to acquire the capabilities to assist its allies in an area that is farther than its immidiate environs, the South Pacific, and has capabilities that can perfrom tasks that are more rigorous than peacekeeping, it may eventually have to deal with these problems right at its own doorstep.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

What I mean is that if New Zealand, and this goes for Australia too, refuses to cooperate with its allies in order to guarantee stability in the South China Sea, and to contain China if it decides to take a belligerent stance, then it would have to one day confront it at its own doorstep, i.e. in New Zealand waters itself,

Ahh yes, the Domino Theory{tm}. This would have some credence were it not for the fact that NZ already does work with nations in the area and shows no sign of stopping.

as for China having a base as far South as New Zealand, one cannot discount the possibility that China will not try to pull a stunt like that since its intention is to become a regional power and eventually challenge the US in the region, which means that it will have to establish a naval presence in the South Pacific eventually if it intends to challenge the US presence in the region,

This would make sense if the South Pacific were in the North Pacifc/Asia area,which is China's region. But not even China can alter geograpy, sorry.

so a strong capability, along with the capability to project it into the South China is necessary in order to persuade China that not challenging the present balalnce of power in the Western Pacific is in its best interest, and this is where the strike forces and frigates can come in, as a deterrance to prevent any rash moves by China in the region.

True enough, the only trouble is that NZ struggles to deploy its army within the South Pacific letalone anywhere else. It is better to concentrate on getting the basics right first.

If China intends to establish a strong presence in the the South Pacific eventually, it will need to have bases there.

Ya think? But given that China cannot invade Taiwan I am pretty sure that Chinese incursions into the South Pacific is pretty far off. Of course all this does not substantiate your ideas of the Chinese having a naval base in NZ because NZ does not spend 2.5% GDP on defence.

 

[ren0312]

Ahh yes, the Domino Theory{tm}. This would have some credence were it not for the fact that NZ already does work with nations in the area and shows no sign of stopping.




This would make sense if the South Pacific were in the North Pacifc/Asia area,which is China's region. But not even China can alter geograpy, sorry.



True enough, the only trouble is that NZ struggles to deploy its army within the South Pacific letalone anywhere else. It is better to concentrate on getting the basics right first.



Ya think? But given that China cannot invade Taiwan I am pretty sure that Chinese incursions into the South Pacific is pretty far off. Of course all this does not substantiate your ideas of the Chinese having a naval base in NZ because NZ does not spend 2.5% GDP on defence.

Well the South China Sea is also considered to be in China's backyard, and if you will check a map, you will see that Australia and the Tasman Sea is not that far off, of course, that will necessitate China having an aircraft carrier, so this is something that is not really a concern in the short term, its really more of a long term concern, I did not say the New Zealand can take on China alone, I am saying that it can make a difference if it does so with a coalition of other countries, that is the US, UK, and Australia, if it really does not want to even touch US foreign policy with a ten foot pole, then maybe the New Zealand government can consider close relations with India, which will also become a major power at about the same time China really starts to have the capability to challenge the USN.

 

[ren0312]

But now you are getting into technicalities my friend, yes of course you can make allowances and degrade the capability to save money, but at what point is a capability less essential? You still have to spend money on the personnel and operational side to keep them combat ready which is actually more expensive in terms of the above budget.

I wont get into platform capability debate because this is more of the strategic direction for the NZDF.

My overall point is that in a regional context of the South Pacific fighters are not of much value to NZ unless it buys the force multipliers to sortie them from NZ into the Pacific. And if it does what use will that be? That is my opinion and I have not seen it disproved yet.

Yes they can be deployed to coalition operations, but why would you deploy fighters you can't use in your own regional context, instead of ISTAR, ASW, Amphibious etc assets that you can use in your own region? Do you spend money on equipment that is of little use in your own environment at the expense of equipment that is?

Now I have an opinion obviously, but at the end of the day it is for the govt of NZ to decide after consultation with the voters.

So are you saying that even with a defence budget between 2 and 2.5 per cent of GDP, you still do not think it will be a good idea to buy jet fighters for New Zealand, but if New Zealand plans to maintain its present level of funding of around 1 per cent, then I think it better stick to peacekeeping operations, to make the most of its very limited amount of funds.

 

[Whiskyjack]

So are you saying that even with a defence budget between 2 and 2.5 per cent of GDP, you still do not think it will be a good idea to buy jet fighters for New Zealand, but if New Zealand plans to maintain its present level of funding of around 1 per cent, then I think it better stick to peacekeeping operations, to make the most of its very limited amount of funds.

No what i am saying is that if defence is fully funded to the level of 2.5% then it can probably afford to fund an air strike force, as well as the other capabilities it needs to operate effectively in it's region.

But it will not be funded to that level. At that point IMO the NZDF needs to be equipped to operate in it's own region, and I do not think that fighters are as important or useful to that structure as other capabilities. However I feel those other capabilities will be deployable and welcome in coalition operations outside of NZ's region.

 

[Sea Toby]

We need to keep this in mind about the New Zealand defence budget. The current procurement budget of $300 million is 19 percent of the $1.6 billion defence budget. At $300 million per year its gonna take 5 years to acquire 5 new Hercules at $300 million each in the next decade. Its likely each Hercules will cost more. The above figures are in New Zealand dollars.

 

[Markus40]

Seatoby, I agree with you on this one. Im not a mathmatician, but you dont have to be a rocket scientist to see that the current level of funding despite the 10 year $4.4 Billion increase will cover all our upgrading and maintaining our current defence forces to the level they should be.

Defence is a huge investment, but is necessary to be in a ready and operable state before being able to deploy. That costs money, but i see that this government is spending the very minimum on what it can to keep us within the "picture frame" of acceptability.

Strike aircraft is a necessary element of the governments defence structure and spending, like the A4s were in our maritime role both at home and at Nowra. To say that Fighters are not important and other equipment is, is like clipping the wing off a bird and throwing him into the wind to see if he will fly.!!!! Sound military doctrine always states that all 3 triad aspects of the armed forces need to be working like a well oiled machine and can work together in a battle field environment. To leave out and not budget for or to "wait" for the money to appear for capital equipment is asking for big trouble.

If national was going to give us billions of dollars in tax cuts last election if they were elected then its obvious that there is money hanging around to fund the Defence forces to the point where we can add an extra ANZAC and reinstall our fighter wing, replace the P3s and C130s, and keep our forces sustained and equiped.

 

[Gibbo]

,
If national was going to give us billions of dollars in tax cuts last election if they were elected then its obvious that there is money hanging around to fund the Defence forces to the point where we can add an extra ANZAC and reinstall our fighter wing, replace the P3s and C130s, and keep our forces sustained and equiped.

I don't want to get political (so no names!) but in NZ there basically 2 'options' (1) Spend good money to get good gear if it's (only) proven for peacekeeping (2) Get tax cuts & find Defence is high on the list of spending cuts - c'os it just ain't important like rugby!

Okay, okay - so basically the NZ public have little empathy with the NZDF & their operations but that seems to be changing. 10 years ago the average NZer wouldn't have had a clue what the NZDF did - mow most have some idea. That's why gear for peacekeeping is an easy sell to the NZ public.

In my experience the average NZer desn't understand the concept of direct threat or regional responsibility with regards to Defence & most accept the diatribes coming from successive govt's about 'NZ pulling it's weight' - which the NZ media love lapping up but have no understanding of!

The RNZAF desperately needs additional lift capacity - it's essential given our location & high operational tempo! Army needs cover and frankly I believe a (small) fleet of ARH is far more practical to enaure we can actually provide a self-contained; balanced army deployment to assist in the region. Granted ARH would require additional lift capability (sea or air) but if we want to pull our weight!...

Hell I'd love an air-combat fleet but it's gone for good now!

Army also needs more robust anti-aircraft set-up & anything that remotely resembles an ISR capability.

Navy needs better armed MRV & 3 decent frigates but none of this is going to happen with either political option. Of course we can (& should afford REAL capability) but the will just isn't there in this country!

 

[mug]

It's interesting that you mention public ignorance in NZ of defence matters - IIRC someone also mentioned it earlier in this thread.

To me, it raises the question: how do you actually go about educating an ignorant public (ie taxpayers) in regards to all things military?

 

[KH-12]

It's interesting that you mention public ignorance in NZ of defence matters - IIRC someone also mentioned it earlier in this thread.

To me, it raises the question: how do you actually go about educating an ignorant public (ie taxpayers) in regards to all things military?

There are alot of ways of achieving this, open days at military establishments (eg airshows) are always good, especially to involve the younger generation to create a defence awareness from an early age (the loss of Whenuapai will also result in a loss of awareness of RNZAF activities near the largest population base in the country), perhaps it could also be put in school curriculums (national security issues) instead of how to be politically correct , talks by defence personnel to students at schools could be arranged, I remember that one of my teachers at school had a husband who was a pilot and organised an excursion to Whenuapai for the day. , it was well received by the whole class.

Documentary series are also useful as long as they are interesting.

 

[mug]

So, the onus is largely on the 3 services to promote themselves?

I imagine this would be the prime example where a unified NZDF 'brand' would be of great value.

Would be a fantastic PR challenge.