Well I would rather a handful of F111s any day if the SU FN32s were too complicated a deal to get off the ground. F111s are approaching some 50yrs in service but giving them a maritime role could be possible........ although general dynamics has discontinued upgrading them they are still the best in their class technical problems aside.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Dr Mapp’s original discussion with Gibbo on the need to start work on the C130 replacements “soon” did appear surprising to some as the C130 NZ$234M Life Extension Project would have seen the C130 kept in service to around 2020-2025 (note that these dates are estimates - no actual dates have been formerly stated thus far and according to the 2006 LTDP: “The estimated life, in service through life costs, and the total cost of ownership are to be confirmed).
However maybe Dr Mapp knew something that hadn’t been public knowledge until now. August’s NZ Aviation News magazine reports:
“Life expectancy of the airframe improvements for the RNZAF C130 Hercules fleet may not be the 15 years anticipated and be downgraded to 10 years. The RNZAF C130 fleet is predicted to be withdrawn in 2017. Options for a tactical transport for the RNZAF to consider in the interim include the EADS A400, the first of which is undergoing assembly in France”.
(Actually I think that Av News should have meant “…predicted to be withdrawn from 2017” (not in 2017) as the first upgraded aircraft is scheduled for completion in late 2007 and the remaining 4 by late 2010).
Whatever the correct dates are, if the replacement tactical transport needs to be in service by 2017, one would have to say the replacement will take on a new urgency. As others have pointed out here earlier in this thread, the A400 may take several years to evaluate, place orders and have them assembled ready for training and delivery. However if the A400 is only an option, does anyone have any thoughts as to what other options the RNZAF should be considering, including any medium transport aircraft etc.
Backgrounder to this project from the RNZAF website http://www.airforce.mil.nz/projects/c-130h-hercules.htm “The scope of the project is the replacement of specific mechanical, avionic, and structural components. The design and installation of modern communications and navigations system will meet evolving air traffic management regulations utilising a modernised 'glass' flight deck with integrated flight management systems”. Some interesting articles on rebuilding the centre wing and the rewiring project can be found on the Air Force News magazine http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn79.pdf pages 20-24 and http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn82web.pdf see pages14-15
However maybe Dr Mapp knew something that hadn’t been public knowledge until now. August’s NZ Aviation News magazine reports:
“Life expectancy of the airframe improvements for the RNZAF C130 Hercules fleet may not be the 15 years anticipated and be downgraded to 10 years. The RNZAF C130 fleet is predicted to be withdrawn in 2017. Options for a tactical transport for the RNZAF to consider in the interim include the EADS A400, the first of which is undergoing assembly in France”.
(Actually I think that Av News should have meant “…predicted to be withdrawn from 2017” (not in 2017) as the first upgraded aircraft is scheduled for completion in late 2007 and the remaining 4 by late 2010).
Whatever the correct dates are, if the replacement tactical transport needs to be in service by 2017, one would have to say the replacement will take on a new urgency. As others have pointed out here earlier in this thread, the A400 may take several years to evaluate, place orders and have them assembled ready for training and delivery. However if the A400 is only an option, does anyone have any thoughts as to what other options the RNZAF should be considering, including any medium transport aircraft etc.
Backgrounder to this project from the RNZAF website http://www.airforce.mil.nz/projects/c-130h-hercules.htm “The scope of the project is the replacement of specific mechanical, avionic, and structural components. The design and installation of modern communications and navigations system will meet evolving air traffic management regulations utilising a modernised 'glass' flight deck with integrated flight management systems”. Some interesting articles on rebuilding the centre wing and the rewiring project can be found on the Air Force News magazine http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn79.pdf pages 20-24 and http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn82web.pdf see pages14-15
apart from more C130's or the A400 the other option could be the Embraer C390 if they ever decide to build it, however it's a little smaller than the Herc, it might not fit the LAV.
Here's a link to the flight global article http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/19/213344/picture-embraer-reveals-details-of-c-390-military-airlifter.html
Here's a link to the flight global article http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/19/213344/picture-embraer-reveals-details-of-c-390-military-airlifter.html
Pakistan paid $25 million apeice for the Falcnns and New Zealand was getting them from the United States for about $7 million each. This fire sale was going to be cheaper than upgrading the Skyhawks again.
Unfortunately the government wanted $70 million year to spend on the arts and found it with the scrapping of the air combat force.
What a shock to the United States the sweetheart deal was cancelled by New Zealand. Up to that time the US was receiving more money for old worn out Falcons. These Falcons were cream puffs as they say in the auto industry.
Seven years later the government still is waiting for US approval to sell their Skyhawks. Why does any Kiwi expect the US to approve their sale?
Unfortunately the government wanted $70 million year to spend on the arts and found it with the scrapping of the air combat force.
What a shock to the United States the sweetheart deal was cancelled by New Zealand. Up to that time the US was receiving more money for old worn out Falcons. These Falcons were cream puffs as they say in the auto industry.
Seven years later the government still is waiting for US approval to sell their Skyhawks. Why does any Kiwi expect the US to approve their sale?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I personally don't think the C390 from Embraer would meet the likely NZDF requirements. One of the reasons why the A400M has appeal is that it is larger than a C-130 Hercules and could transport an NZLAV. As far as I'm aware, that's something the current RNZAF C-130H's can't realistically do at present. The C-130H has a range of 1,050 n miles with a normal payload of 16,590 kg, and a max payload of 19,090 kg. The NZLAV has a combat weight of 20,549 kg... Also, IIRC the US has issues with transporting their LAV-based vehicles on C-130 due to how closely the vehicle fills the cargo area and that the add-on armour can't be fitted while in transit since there isn't room.
Switching to a smaller aircraft like the C390, with a presumably smaller cargo area and lower cargo capacity, would take the NZDF even further away from being able to transport the NZLAV. Also, at present it appears that the C390 is a concept, quite possibly not as far along as the A400M in development and could therefore take a number of years to be available for order.
If NZ no longer forsees a need for large payload delivery then it might make sense, but otherwise I don't see the C390 as a viable replacement for the Hercules.
-Cheers
Yes , i fully agree on that one. The C390 is way too small for NZ needs and i would almost bet the RNZAF would suggest the same. It might be a replacment for the Andovers but this government isnt going to look at that option now. The A400M has very good range with full payload, and this is the type of aircraft we need from a isolated location such as NZ.
NZjoeAverage
New Member
Hello all,
I'm new to the forums (and just consider myself an average kiwi with an interest in defence) and thought I would start with a factoid I spotted. There didn't seem to be any current info on NZ military spending in relation to GDP.
Wayne Mapp asked this recently and the answer was posted on the parliament website at (actually I can't link because I'm too fresh a member)
To save you looking the answer is 1.09%, not much more than what the CIA world fact book has down for a 2005 estimate at 1%. There is a follow up question asking what that figure has been for the last 7 years but the answer is not yet posted.
That got me thinking – I find that disappointing so what would be a reasonable level of spend to the NZ public - being the consumers they are 1.99% could fly, it's not 2% (that would be double!) it's only going from 1.something% to 1.mumble%, might slip under the radar of a few. In real terms that would almost double defense spending allowing for an increase in GDP and be much better regarded by the likes of the Aussies and others who would notice and respect a sizable shift.
In tune with the forum topic of NZDF under a change of government, I would think this would be a perfect time to make such a shift in spending, I only wish the election was this year not next.
It's clearly unlikely we would see or afford any big ticket items (like another frigate or ACF) coming in without being a vote killer. So if the spend was 1.99% of GDP what do forum readers think that sort of spend should go on (excluding big ticket where possible). My apologies for the long post but I am quite interested in eliciting feedback so I cover a bit under the broad banner of this forum topic.
My thoughts on where to spend with some reasoning why are
GENERAL
- Do everything in the current LTDP in 5 years not 10, there are many non defence projects coming up to be done before the RWC in 2011 why not make some headway in defence, the public understands counter terrorist capabilities should be required for such an international event - use that to your advantage to buy now.
- Follow the Aussie lead in trying to increase personnel by encouraging "gap year" stints in the military, a small percentage are going to stay on and other positive side effects are better role models for youth, over time this will grow numbers and with decent spending on equipment and wages more are likely to stay on including the most needed experienced personnel.
- Wayne Mapp wants a white paper if he gets in - he should go the whole way and have a complete independent review of what all the capability gaps are in the NZDF and most importantly do something about it.
- NZ needs to pick up its game with US relations, information sharing with them and Australia will help immensely with knowing what's really going on in the South Pacific.
NAVY
- ANZACS get everything the Aussies are getting or have on theirs. Prioritise getting those torpedoes - Helen may not be concerned by Subs but with look at what conflicts are over (Middle East - Oil) with oil and gas exploration starting to grow in NZ maybe the Russians get a bit happy about where they put their flags and as well as the Arctic shelf they look at some Antarctic shelf claim, you don't want anyone thinking you are a total walkover.
- Endevour and Manawanui - at least have a definite plan for what will replace them taking MCM in account
- IPVs should have the 25mm Bushmasters they were supposed to have and Mini Typhoons Aft for full 360 Coverage
- OPVs, there should be a 3rd as per the original recommendation (I never liked the how many boats can I get for $500m approach, figure out what you need then figure out how to pay for it). They should have 57mm up front as you need to make more of a statement to unstable nations and terrorists than I can stop someone stealing my tuna. Again a Mini Typhoon aft. I also think they need something like Simbad, maybe a terrorist hijacks an flight from the Gold Coast and says your Capitalist Sky Tower offends me, lets at least have a sliver of hope that someone who can do something might be in the right place at the right time. Helos on board should be regular.
- MRV, something needs to be done on self defence, the only way it could be worse is if they painted it white and put a big red target on it. If you load it up with LAVs, troops and NH-90s and it gets taken out, you pretty much halve the NZDF. It shouldn't go anywhere fully loaded without at least an ANZAC along side plus some tricks of its own. What do you think is realistic here ?
AIRFORCE
- Orions need arming, if you are going to find a problem you need to be able to do something about it. ASW needs to be there along with expediting the self defence upgrade while the current work is being done. Just because they haven’t seen a lot of subs in the past doesn’t mean they won’t in the future, maybe a terrorist has the funds or ability to get a sub then decides to damage western economies starting by cruising past the Devonport Naval base and putting a torpedo into a Harbour Bridge pillar that would cause a definite economic impact.
- Whenuapai should be a combined military/public airport, if you want people to stay in the armed forces why shift people away from major population bases where they could be close to family and friends.
- Funding a few more training exercises with the RAAF jets if we can't have our own to up-skill our NZDF.
- NH-90s need to stock some options for surveillance and weapons to give NZ a few more options than just armed Orions. If we can’t afford to buy more than 8 then at least substitute a couple from the TTH to the NFH version to have a bit more regular likelihood of having a helo on the Navy ships.
ARMY
- 2NZSAS – maybe the numbers aren’t there to make this possible but maybe enough for another CTTAG working out of Trentham
- They need to be way more proactive on recruitment (as do all the branches). I’d rather pay my taxes someone in the armed forces than someone on the dole. One more guy gaining respect for our nation rather than tagging the corner dairy.
Maybe I focus to much on the Navy and Airforce but if someone is going to “do something” to NZ you have to remember we are an island nation and they have to get here somehow and I would rather stop them before they arrive. I think it is unrealistic to try and have any “force projection” beyond outgunning South Pacific nations smaller than ours and deterring terrorists - who will eventually notice us, peacekeeping is upsetting someone who wants a fight after all.
I appreciate some of my suggestions are a bit of a rehash from this and other forums but would like to see if my input warrants a bit of discussion.
Anyway that’s my $0.02, I look forward to input either on specific recommendations or just generally how they might allocate an extra 0.9% of NZs GDP in defence especially with more of a - what can be done in the next 5 years perspective.
I'm new to the forums (and just consider myself an average kiwi with an interest in defence) and thought I would start with a factoid I spotted. There didn't seem to be any current info on NZ military spending in relation to GDP.
Wayne Mapp asked this recently and the answer was posted on the parliament website at (actually I can't link because I'm too fresh a member)
To save you looking the answer is 1.09%, not much more than what the CIA world fact book has down for a 2005 estimate at 1%. There is a follow up question asking what that figure has been for the last 7 years but the answer is not yet posted.
That got me thinking – I find that disappointing so what would be a reasonable level of spend to the NZ public - being the consumers they are 1.99% could fly, it's not 2% (that would be double!) it's only going from 1.something% to 1.mumble%, might slip under the radar of a few. In real terms that would almost double defense spending allowing for an increase in GDP and be much better regarded by the likes of the Aussies and others who would notice and respect a sizable shift.
In tune with the forum topic of NZDF under a change of government, I would think this would be a perfect time to make such a shift in spending, I only wish the election was this year not next.
It's clearly unlikely we would see or afford any big ticket items (like another frigate or ACF) coming in without being a vote killer. So if the spend was 1.99% of GDP what do forum readers think that sort of spend should go on (excluding big ticket where possible). My apologies for the long post but I am quite interested in eliciting feedback so I cover a bit under the broad banner of this forum topic.
My thoughts on where to spend with some reasoning why are
GENERAL
- Do everything in the current LTDP in 5 years not 10, there are many non defence projects coming up to be done before the RWC in 2011 why not make some headway in defence, the public understands counter terrorist capabilities should be required for such an international event - use that to your advantage to buy now.
- Follow the Aussie lead in trying to increase personnel by encouraging "gap year" stints in the military, a small percentage are going to stay on and other positive side effects are better role models for youth, over time this will grow numbers and with decent spending on equipment and wages more are likely to stay on including the most needed experienced personnel.
- Wayne Mapp wants a white paper if he gets in - he should go the whole way and have a complete independent review of what all the capability gaps are in the NZDF and most importantly do something about it.
- NZ needs to pick up its game with US relations, information sharing with them and Australia will help immensely with knowing what's really going on in the South Pacific.
NAVY
- ANZACS get everything the Aussies are getting or have on theirs. Prioritise getting those torpedoes - Helen may not be concerned by Subs but with look at what conflicts are over (Middle East - Oil) with oil and gas exploration starting to grow in NZ maybe the Russians get a bit happy about where they put their flags and as well as the Arctic shelf they look at some Antarctic shelf claim, you don't want anyone thinking you are a total walkover.
- Endevour and Manawanui - at least have a definite plan for what will replace them taking MCM in account
- IPVs should have the 25mm Bushmasters they were supposed to have and Mini Typhoons Aft for full 360 Coverage
- OPVs, there should be a 3rd as per the original recommendation (I never liked the how many boats can I get for $500m approach, figure out what you need then figure out how to pay for it). They should have 57mm up front as you need to make more of a statement to unstable nations and terrorists than I can stop someone stealing my tuna. Again a Mini Typhoon aft. I also think they need something like Simbad, maybe a terrorist hijacks an flight from the Gold Coast and says your Capitalist Sky Tower offends me, lets at least have a sliver of hope that someone who can do something might be in the right place at the right time. Helos on board should be regular.
- MRV, something needs to be done on self defence, the only way it could be worse is if they painted it white and put a big red target on it. If you load it up with LAVs, troops and NH-90s and it gets taken out, you pretty much halve the NZDF. It shouldn't go anywhere fully loaded without at least an ANZAC along side plus some tricks of its own. What do you think is realistic here ?
AIRFORCE
- Orions need arming, if you are going to find a problem you need to be able to do something about it. ASW needs to be there along with expediting the self defence upgrade while the current work is being done. Just because they haven’t seen a lot of subs in the past doesn’t mean they won’t in the future, maybe a terrorist has the funds or ability to get a sub then decides to damage western economies starting by cruising past the Devonport Naval base and putting a torpedo into a Harbour Bridge pillar that would cause a definite economic impact.
- Whenuapai should be a combined military/public airport, if you want people to stay in the armed forces why shift people away from major population bases where they could be close to family and friends.
- Funding a few more training exercises with the RAAF jets if we can't have our own to up-skill our NZDF.
- NH-90s need to stock some options for surveillance and weapons to give NZ a few more options than just armed Orions. If we can’t afford to buy more than 8 then at least substitute a couple from the TTH to the NFH version to have a bit more regular likelihood of having a helo on the Navy ships.
ARMY
- 2NZSAS – maybe the numbers aren’t there to make this possible but maybe enough for another CTTAG working out of Trentham
- They need to be way more proactive on recruitment (as do all the branches). I’d rather pay my taxes someone in the armed forces than someone on the dole. One more guy gaining respect for our nation rather than tagging the corner dairy.
Maybe I focus to much on the Navy and Airforce but if someone is going to “do something” to NZ you have to remember we are an island nation and they have to get here somehow and I would rather stop them before they arrive. I think it is unrealistic to try and have any “force projection” beyond outgunning South Pacific nations smaller than ours and deterring terrorists - who will eventually notice us, peacekeeping is upsetting someone who wants a fight after all.
I appreciate some of my suggestions are a bit of a rehash from this and other forums but would like to see if my input warrants a bit of discussion.
Anyway that’s my $0.02, I look forward to input either on specific recommendations or just generally how they might allocate an extra 0.9% of NZs GDP in defence especially with more of a - what can be done in the next 5 years perspective.
welcome on board
Its good to hear increases on defence spending, its like music to my ears, however NZ politicians need to sell this to the general public who I believe usually are misinformed, or believe the general myth of too small or isolated to warrant any defence spending past 0.7%. We are a funny lot when it comes to forking out money on defence, any political party will now have to justify doubling its defence spending short of poltitical suicide!
Can it happen? Well yes, all it takes is political will and the willingness to reeducate a public on what it takes to have a credible defence force, we tend to take spending on arts more seriously than defence which might make some laugh but seriously, we actually do!
I think NZ limits itself in what it can do based also on post cold war revision and cost cutting that many western nations are following. The idea that more is better (sounds authentically Russian) is balanced with less but more lethal which follows a western approach, technology pushes these boundaries. NZ tends to take the stance that less is better but does not go further than that, is it lethal? Probably not, only to illegal fishing vessels and the like.
NZ can have a small but lethal force if it wanted to, it is not entirely outside of its ability to do so. When I say lethal I mean parts of the force can mix it with the best in high hostile environments with a good degree of self reliance. That is if it was faced with eminent attack it can have the ability to defend itself independantly and retaliate before friendly forces arrive. This is where NZDF might struggle, our frigates may suffer casualties and damage in a hostile environment, than all the cost cutting up to date will go down the tube with an uninformed public asking questions like I thought these frigates were fully armed but why were they not? But most us who endear oursleves to the finer points of what constitutes a fully armed frigate will be saying "told you so" should have listened, and the political football of the blame game will be passed around in parliament as usual, while some poor family has to take the loss on the chin of their son or daughter, father or mother that has died serving their country that didnt bother to arm these frigates so they can defend itself and retaliate if it needs to.
We send our forces in hostile environments even as peace keepers, we should make sure they are armed to the teeth, would you do peace keeping in Iraq where hundreds of US soldiers have died, knowing you had inferior equipment? Probably not, so the point is, yes increase defence spending we should have a lethal force whatever that size is, no point calling in friendly forces for back up when facing a direct threat and you have to decide in three seconds before facing annihalation.
Its good to hear increases on defence spending, its like music to my ears, however NZ politicians need to sell this to the general public who I believe usually are misinformed, or believe the general myth of too small or isolated to warrant any defence spending past 0.7%. We are a funny lot when it comes to forking out money on defence, any political party will now have to justify doubling its defence spending short of poltitical suicide!
Can it happen? Well yes, all it takes is political will and the willingness to reeducate a public on what it takes to have a credible defence force, we tend to take spending on arts more seriously than defence which might make some laugh but seriously, we actually do!
I think NZ limits itself in what it can do based also on post cold war revision and cost cutting that many western nations are following. The idea that more is better (sounds authentically Russian) is balanced with less but more lethal which follows a western approach, technology pushes these boundaries. NZ tends to take the stance that less is better but does not go further than that, is it lethal? Probably not, only to illegal fishing vessels and the like.
NZ can have a small but lethal force if it wanted to, it is not entirely outside of its ability to do so. When I say lethal I mean parts of the force can mix it with the best in high hostile environments with a good degree of self reliance. That is if it was faced with eminent attack it can have the ability to defend itself independantly and retaliate before friendly forces arrive. This is where NZDF might struggle, our frigates may suffer casualties and damage in a hostile environment, than all the cost cutting up to date will go down the tube with an uninformed public asking questions like I thought these frigates were fully armed but why were they not? But most us who endear oursleves to the finer points of what constitutes a fully armed frigate will be saying "told you so" should have listened, and the political football of the blame game will be passed around in parliament as usual, while some poor family has to take the loss on the chin of their son or daughter, father or mother that has died serving their country that didnt bother to arm these frigates so they can defend itself and retaliate if it needs to.
We send our forces in hostile environments even as peace keepers, we should make sure they are armed to the teeth, would you do peace keeping in Iraq where hundreds of US soldiers have died, knowing you had inferior equipment? Probably not, so the point is, yes increase defence spending we should have a lethal force whatever that size is, no point calling in friendly forces for back up when facing a direct threat and you have to decide in three seconds before facing annihalation.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Questions on the NZDF budget
I looked at this site. http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/election-brief-2005/votes-defence-nzdf-op.html
And it appears that the NZDF (2005) was NZ$1.6 bil with the monies roughly split in thirds for Personnel, Operations, and Capital Charge/Depreciation. I'm unfamiliar with NZ accounting or budgeting practices, so the role the Capital Charge and Depreciation play in the budget I don't understand. If someone could explain it to me, I'd appreciate it.
I'm more familiar with US accounting practices where Depreciation is something that is calculated and included when determining the Net Assets of a company, etc. As such, it isn't something that has to normally be budgeted for, as the budget consists on what the plans for the cash flow will be, incoming and outgoing.
-Cheers
I looked at this site. http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/election-brief-2005/votes-defence-nzdf-op.html
And it appears that the NZDF (2005) was NZ$1.6 bil with the monies roughly split in thirds for Personnel, Operations, and Capital Charge/Depreciation. I'm unfamiliar with NZ accounting or budgeting practices, so the role the Capital Charge and Depreciation play in the budget I don't understand. If someone could explain it to me, I'd appreciate it.
I'm more familiar with US accounting practices where Depreciation is something that is calculated and included when determining the Net Assets of a company, etc. As such, it isn't something that has to normally be budgeted for, as the budget consists on what the plans for the cash flow will be, incoming and outgoing.
If the NZDF budget was as NZjoeAverage said, 1.09% of the NZ government budget, how much additional funding would be available to be spent if the NZDF budget was raised to 1.50% say? I'm getting a figure of approximately NZ$2.2 bil but I'm not sure what the exact/actual effect is of the Capital Charge and Depreciation charge, so I'm not sure that there would be NZ$600 mil in additional funds available. Depending on the amount available a range of options would open up.
-Cheers
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Agreed, if someone familiar with accounting practices could explain the accounting, capital charge and depreciation aspects that Todjaeger is referring to, it would be appreciated.
The information NZjoeAverage is referring to is at http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/QWA/c/2/7/QWA and two of the three questions I saw were:
"14098 (2007). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Defence (10 Aug 2007): What percentage has defence spending comprised of New Zealand's gross domestic product in each of the last seven years?"
"Hon Phil Goff (Minister of Defence) replied: Defence spending in each of the last seven years, as a percentage of New Zealand’s gross domestic product, has been: FY: 2000/01 - 1.26% 2001/02 - 1.13% 2002/03 - 1.08% 2003/04 - 1.09% 2004/05 - 1.02% 2005/06 - 1.06% 2006/07 - 1.10%"
"14099 (2007). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Defence (10 Aug 2007): What percentage has defence spending comprised of New Zealand's gross domestic product in each of the last seven years using standard NATO measures?"
"Hon Phil Goff (Minister of Defence) replied: Defence spending in each of the last seven years, as a percentage of New Zealand’s gross domestic product, and using standard NATO measures, has been: FY: 2000/01 - 0.97% 2001/02 - 1.03% 2002/03 - 0.87% 2003/04 - 1.08% 2004/05 - 0.91% 2005/06 - 0.99% 2006/07 - 1.09%"
Trouble is (in terms of easily comparing NZ to other countries) NZ does appear to budget for defence differently. The following quote is quite interesting and it is taken from Jim Rolfe’s “Cutting their cloth: NZ’s defence strategy” published by ASPI this year.
“The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) has some 9,000 professional servicemen and women, and a total personnel strength (including nonregular forces and civilians) of about 13,500. Its budget was very slightly less than NZ$1,750 million for the year ending June 2007 (to which should be added some $9.5 million for the Ministry of Defence and $285 million for defence capital expenditure, both accounted for separately). Overall defence expenditure is about 1.3% of gross domestic product and 4% of core government spending.
At 30 June 2006, the NZDF had 409 personnel operationally deployed (that is, not on exercises or other training) on eleven operations in some fifteen countries. Deployment numbers can change quickly-in the 2005-06 financial year, they varied between about 240 and 515, and have reached more than 800 at other times.
Although for many countries these numbers are not at all large in either absolute or relative terms, for a country the size of New Zealand (4 million population, $52 billion annual appropriated government expenditure) facing no military threat and no compelling reason to spend on guns rather than butter, they are significant figures”.
Now the Labour Govt have committed to some NZ$3B in defence capital equipment spending from around 2000-2012 and some NZ $4.7B in their defence sustainability initiative from 2005 (another 10 year project?). If I understand things correctly, these figures are in addition to defence’s annual operating budget. However while these figures appear impressive for a country and economy the size of NZ’s, from memory I believe the Govt conceded to the opposition a couple of years ago that these additional expenditures won’t significantly increase the overall spending in relation to GDP (can’t recall the reasons why, but perhaps it is because if you divide the $7.7B extra funding on a per year basis the annual figure is of course lower and probably because in actuality the capital expenditure will vary year to year depending on what was bought and paid for and in relation to the DSI, I recall the Govt saying that the DSI expenditure will be smaller in the initial first few years then ramp up in later years (eg presumably when the air force relocate to Ohakea and build new hangers and accommodation etc). Hopefully someone else can clarify this better than me here.
Also the following Parliamentary question better explains what the DSI is in simple language (ignore the ANZAC Frigate question which was fobbed off slightly):
"13075 (2007). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Defence (31 Jul 2007): Further to the answer to written question 04069 (2007), is the ANZAC frigate upgrade fully budgeted for in the Defence Sustainability Initiative (DSI); if not, what aspects of the upgrade are not covered by the DSI?
Hon Phil Goff (Minister of Defence) replied: The $4.6 billion Defence Sustainability Initiative (DSI) announced by the Government in May 2005 consists of operating funding to enable increased personnel numbers; increased reserve stocks of ammunition, fuel and spares; development of infrastructure at camps and bases; and improved corporate management capability. The DSI did include a modest capital contribution to the Defence Long-Term Development Plan, which remains the primary source of funding for capital equipment projects."
So perhaps one could conclude that even a "slight" increase to GDP expenditure to even 1.5% or slightly higher (don't think we will see that 2% cold war figure it used to be - could be wrong, off the top of my head etc), as Todjaeger asks, it would be an interesting exercise to figure out how much money could be allocated to NZDF projects etc, especially in light of our enthusiam here for the Govt to upgrade the NZDF further. Any accountants out there with a few minutes to spare to work it out?
The information NZjoeAverage is referring to is at http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/QWA/c/2/7/QWA and two of the three questions I saw were:
"14098 (2007). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Defence (10 Aug 2007): What percentage has defence spending comprised of New Zealand's gross domestic product in each of the last seven years?"
"Hon Phil Goff (Minister of Defence) replied: Defence spending in each of the last seven years, as a percentage of New Zealand’s gross domestic product, has been: FY: 2000/01 - 1.26% 2001/02 - 1.13% 2002/03 - 1.08% 2003/04 - 1.09% 2004/05 - 1.02% 2005/06 - 1.06% 2006/07 - 1.10%"
"14099 (2007). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Defence (10 Aug 2007): What percentage has defence spending comprised of New Zealand's gross domestic product in each of the last seven years using standard NATO measures?"
"Hon Phil Goff (Minister of Defence) replied: Defence spending in each of the last seven years, as a percentage of New Zealand’s gross domestic product, and using standard NATO measures, has been: FY: 2000/01 - 0.97% 2001/02 - 1.03% 2002/03 - 0.87% 2003/04 - 1.08% 2004/05 - 0.91% 2005/06 - 0.99% 2006/07 - 1.09%"
Trouble is (in terms of easily comparing NZ to other countries) NZ does appear to budget for defence differently. The following quote is quite interesting and it is taken from Jim Rolfe’s “Cutting their cloth: NZ’s defence strategy” published by ASPI this year.
“The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) has some 9,000 professional servicemen and women, and a total personnel strength (including nonregular forces and civilians) of about 13,500. Its budget was very slightly less than NZ$1,750 million for the year ending June 2007 (to which should be added some $9.5 million for the Ministry of Defence and $285 million for defence capital expenditure, both accounted for separately). Overall defence expenditure is about 1.3% of gross domestic product and 4% of core government spending.
At 30 June 2006, the NZDF had 409 personnel operationally deployed (that is, not on exercises or other training) on eleven operations in some fifteen countries. Deployment numbers can change quickly-in the 2005-06 financial year, they varied between about 240 and 515, and have reached more than 800 at other times.
Although for many countries these numbers are not at all large in either absolute or relative terms, for a country the size of New Zealand (4 million population, $52 billion annual appropriated government expenditure) facing no military threat and no compelling reason to spend on guns rather than butter, they are significant figures”.
Now the Labour Govt have committed to some NZ$3B in defence capital equipment spending from around 2000-2012 and some NZ $4.7B in their defence sustainability initiative from 2005 (another 10 year project?). If I understand things correctly, these figures are in addition to defence’s annual operating budget. However while these figures appear impressive for a country and economy the size of NZ’s, from memory I believe the Govt conceded to the opposition a couple of years ago that these additional expenditures won’t significantly increase the overall spending in relation to GDP (can’t recall the reasons why, but perhaps it is because if you divide the $7.7B extra funding on a per year basis the annual figure is of course lower and probably because in actuality the capital expenditure will vary year to year depending on what was bought and paid for and in relation to the DSI, I recall the Govt saying that the DSI expenditure will be smaller in the initial first few years then ramp up in later years (eg presumably when the air force relocate to Ohakea and build new hangers and accommodation etc). Hopefully someone else can clarify this better than me here.
Also the following Parliamentary question better explains what the DSI is in simple language (ignore the ANZAC Frigate question which was fobbed off slightly):
"13075 (2007). Dr Wayne Mapp to the Minister of Defence (31 Jul 2007): Further to the answer to written question 04069 (2007), is the ANZAC frigate upgrade fully budgeted for in the Defence Sustainability Initiative (DSI); if not, what aspects of the upgrade are not covered by the DSI?
Hon Phil Goff (Minister of Defence) replied: The $4.6 billion Defence Sustainability Initiative (DSI) announced by the Government in May 2005 consists of operating funding to enable increased personnel numbers; increased reserve stocks of ammunition, fuel and spares; development of infrastructure at camps and bases; and improved corporate management capability. The DSI did include a modest capital contribution to the Defence Long-Term Development Plan, which remains the primary source of funding for capital equipment projects."
So perhaps one could conclude that even a "slight" increase to GDP expenditure to even 1.5% or slightly higher (don't think we will see that 2% cold war figure it used to be - could be wrong, off the top of my head etc), as Todjaeger asks, it would be an interesting exercise to figure out how much money could be allocated to NZDF projects etc, especially in light of our enthusiam here for the Govt to upgrade the NZDF further. Any accountants out there with a few minutes to spare to work it out?
Stuart Mackey
New Member
Wrong. The public must know not what it takes to have credible armed forces, but why. The Why is everything why we went to Timor, why we fought in two world wars. They know why we hated the war in Vietnam and now why we are in Afghanistan and not in Iraq; Why we fight is what needs education in New Zealand, the how flows naturally from that.
A case in point is East Timor in 1975. A small nation invaded by a cruel despotic neighbor, subjected to tyranny and the muder of innocents, spurned by those who wanted to curry the favour of the tyrant, tyranny resisted by a small band of civillians turned soldiers and belatedly rescued by a shamed West.
That whole episode was a disgrace to NZ and Australia, a small nation was invaded and subjected to tyrrany and we did nothing. Note those who protested to much, and continue to protest. Those people who activly decry despotism whereever it may be found yet, in the same breath, prevent the raising of the forces nessary to stop such outrages in the first place, who's side are they really on?.
This is the message that people need to see and understand:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
*edit* Think I should I write movie scripts?
Last edited:
Investigator
New Member
Comments deleted.
Last edited:
Investigator
New Member
Comments deleted.
Last edited:
Couldnt agee more. I made mention in a previous thread that this whole debacle was a total embarrasment to the US , NZ and to the rest of the world. It was a dumb, uneducated, stupid political move from this dumb government over the role the air defence forces role. It wasnt even a fire sale . The US were giving them away to us. Literally. It still astounds the soundest of mind how this could ever have happened. There is absolutely no reason why the US should be interested in taking away our own combat force when they could have been used to our benefit. Having them hangout in a hanger at woodbourne is a monument of stupidity and it sends a clear message to the government and to the uneducated in our population although most really dont give a S...t that this isnt satisfactory reasoning.
Investigator
New Member
Comments deleted.
Last edited:
Any chance of invasion of NZ or Australia is very slim, as much chance as Samoa winning the rugby world cup, may happen but unlikely, as for who defends which country its a bit redundant, we would be all fighting together if Australia were invaded NZ troops would be over here and vice versa, I would walk in to the NZ camp and sign on (although I would have to lose a few kilos). I dont have Australian citizenship so couldn't join their army, but that can change by passing emergency laws through parliament.
Although I would be well protected and have modern equipment, tanks, attack choppers, jet fighters protecting me if I joined the aussie camp. So my chances might fare better fighting with the aussies as for NZ we have a little more catching up to do to make poor old grunt in the trenches feel a little more supported than just having a few LAVIIIs.
Stopping an invasion just ouside of Australia or in it means the invasion does not make it to NZ which is really the same as fighting to protect NZ but indirectly and vice versa, a kiwi fighting a war on Australian soil to protect her makes sense why would hundreds of thousands of us migrate back to NZ to wait for the war to reach there? We would be sacrificing our lives in Australia to also protect our families here but also protect what we hold dear back home, to lose a war on Australian soil would only mean my family back home would cop it too when the invading army gets there.
This is also presuming the invaders could get past our maritime forces and airforces and the good old USA who doesn't like the take over of it's allies, NZ might be looking in the rubbish bin by then, for that ANZUS Treaty it threw out!
Yes we would die for the defence of our country of birth most of my family still live in NZ, some here in Australia, some in the US, some in the Pacific Islands, no worries bro we got all the bases that count covered.
Although I would be well protected and have modern equipment, tanks, attack choppers, jet fighters protecting me if I joined the aussie camp. So my chances might fare better fighting with the aussies as for NZ we have a little more catching up to do to make poor old grunt in the trenches feel a little more supported than just having a few LAVIIIs.
Stopping an invasion just ouside of Australia or in it means the invasion does not make it to NZ which is really the same as fighting to protect NZ but indirectly and vice versa, a kiwi fighting a war on Australian soil to protect her makes sense why would hundreds of thousands of us migrate back to NZ to wait for the war to reach there? We would be sacrificing our lives in Australia to also protect our families here but also protect what we hold dear back home, to lose a war on Australian soil would only mean my family back home would cop it too when the invading army gets there.
This is also presuming the invaders could get past our maritime forces and airforces and the good old USA who doesn't like the take over of it's allies, NZ might be looking in the rubbish bin by then, for that ANZUS Treaty it threw out!
Yes we would die for the defence of our country of birth most of my family still live in NZ, some here in Australia, some in the US, some in the Pacific Islands, no worries bro we got all the bases that count covered.
Last edited:
Nicely put fob. I have lots of Kiwi friends who live permanently in Australia as well as Aussie friends living permanently in NZ. The two countries are very close and if either were threatened I don't think that there is any doubt that they would fight as one. Everyone in my circle of friends (and it includes a few lefty, greeny types!) would not only support but would demand that Australia help defend NZ if it were ever threatened or attacked. The relationship between the two countries goes way beyond anything written in a treaty. We can hate each other on the sports field but we will stand up for for each other in times of conflict. We can even support NZ in a cricket match if they are playing England!
I have absolutely no doubt that any attack on NZ would be regarded by Australians as an attack on Australia.
Tas
I think most us all, are good men doing nothing but take out our frustrations on this forum, why did we not go into East Timor?
Well my guess is after Vietnam most of us didn't have the stomach for it. There are a few politicians that stand on the principle of stopping despotism, but can the public stomach the harsh realities of war, innocent people dying, our soldiers coming home in body bags, a polonged and complicated affair war is, Vietnam taught us there are no easy victories and the media will not necessarily paint the propaganda defence forces want. If we do pick a fight are we willing to go all the way!
Saying why we should go in this fight and then turning around and saying we dont have the means to do it, defeats the purpose of your real intentions that is to defeat evil when it rears its ugly head.
I like the attack of having a credible defence force first, then we could argue (till the cows come home) why we should go to this particular fight, when the green lights signal, all is go, hopefully the defence force is in some shape to deliver what the will of the NZ govt is.