NZDF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

Reasonable depends entirely on what is expected of the army
Such a model has worked in the past and would be the most productive way, probably the only way, to contribute meaningfully to a large scale conflict.

I would suggest that, as with all nations, any situation that threatens NZ's vital interests, and that would be regional as well as global conflict. Determining those interests is simply a matter of following the trade and income figures. Time frame would be what it always has been historically,given the base we are operating from: two years minimum, presupposing availability of equipment.

If this is the model being followed, I can only assume that its the same basic reasoning behind why it was used in the past; Defence of New Zealand's political independence, way of life etc in the most effective manner without massive and ruinous expenditure during peacetime.
Would the NZDF be conducting itself professionally if it did not plan for, and have basic structures for, a worst case scenario?

Okay, now I can expand more fully on what my thinking is and certain assumptions I have been making.

Assuming that the NZ Army is currently structured in such a way to act as a cadre or framework for a rapid expansion in the Army, I see the following two competing issues.

1. The time needed to raise, train and equip the expanded or reconstituted Army units.

2. The circumstances underwhich large scale enlistment or conscription would occur.


For the first item, I had not heard a number for the Army, but I had heard estimates of ~5 years training to rebuild an ACF for the RNZAF, assuming the equipment was available. Given what is likely needed in terms of skills, I can agree to a 2 year training requirement for Army to raise additional units.

For the second item, I would think that for NZ to begin to fill out units to achieve a large scale army expansion, a fairly significant event or circumstances would need to occur. Something along the lines of a large scale conflict breaking out, or something else similar that would threaten NZ interests and way of life. The problem I see with this is that, given the currently available precision weaponry, high intensity warfare between or involving developed nations would likely not last long enough for the units undergoing training to see service. As such, whatever contributions NZ would make to a conflict would have to be from existing units and equipment.

-Cheers

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snippage The problem I see with this is that, given the currently available precision weaponry, high intensity warfare between or involving developed nations would likely not last long enough for the units undergoing training to see service. As such, whatever contributions NZ would make to a conflict would have to be from existing units and equipment.

-Cheers

I do believe that such assumptions were made pre 1914. It would be folly to assume that anything is likely in a war, certainly the length of one and to blithely assume that a war will be short simply because of the presence of precision munitions seems to be particularly fallacious.

 

[Todjaeger]

I do believe that such assumptions were made pre 1914. It would be folly to assume that anything is likely in a war, certainly the length of one and to blithely assume that a war will be short simply because of the presence of precision munitions seems to be particularly fallacious.

Perhaps, then again, perhaps not.

As I had mentioned, conditions would need to be such that there was a large scale conscription or volunteer enlistment in the NZDF. To my mind, that would indicate some form of high intensity conflict in which NZ had some interest or stake in, and did not feel that the NZDF had sufficient forces to handle or participate in. Therefore, whole units needed to be raised to meet this anticipated force requirement. I have difficulty imagining such a high intensity conflict involving NZ, that would not draw other nations (Australia, US, UK, etc) in. Once a conflict begins to involve world powers (or the superpower) then the nature of the conflict begins to change, due to the capabilities the various powers have in terms of C4ISR and force projection resources.

One, or perhaps both sides, would have the ability to wreak havoc on the other's forces and infrastructure, and likely in a fairly short period of time. The general outcome being that the conflict is not able to be sustained at a high level, with either a peace agreement or some form of peacekeeping/occupation force operating. The conflict might still continue for some time, but not in a conventional fashion, and likely not at a sufficiently large scale to provide the needed increase in recruits to make real use of an existing force skeletal structure. For these ideas, I am looking back over the past ~25 years of military history and comparing those years to WWI and WWII/Korea.

With that assumption in mind, I would think that a lesser focus on maintaining future force expansion, and a greater focus on upkeep of a currently fieldable force would a NZ's path. NZ would still have the capability to expand the army, but it would not consume such a degree of available resources as it seems to at present.

-Cheers

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Perhaps, then again, perhaps not.

As I had mentioned, conditions would need to be such that there was a large scale conscription or volunteer enlistment in the NZDF. To my mind, that would indicate some form of high intensity conflict in which NZ had some interest or stake in, and did not feel that the NZDF had sufficient forces to handle or participate in. Therefore, whole units needed to be raised to meet this anticipated force requirement. I have difficulty imagining such a high intensity conflict involving NZ, that would not draw other nations (Australia, US, UK, etc) in. Once a conflict begins to involve world powers (or the superpower) then the nature of the conflict begins to change, due to the capabilities the various powers have in terms of C4ISR and force projection resources.

I think thats a given.

One, or perhaps both sides, would have the ability to wreak havoc on the other's forces and infrastructure, and likely in a fairly short period of time. The general outcome being that the conflict is not able to be sustained at a high level, with either a peace agreement or some form of peacekeeping/occupation force operating.

I fail to see why peace would be declared just because both sides have used up existing stocks of gear, all that would happen is that you either go nuclear or simplify your designs for mass production and keep going. WW1 did not end simply because of the shell shortage after all.

The conflict might still continue for some time, but not in a conventional fashion, and likely not at a sufficiently large scale to provide the needed increase in recruits to make real use of an existing force skeletal structure. For these ideas, I am looking back over the past ~25 years of military history and comparing those years to WWI and WWII/Korea.

It depends on what is at stake and if things go nuclear. If Nuclear weapons are not used from the outset or there is a gentleman's agreement on their use all you get is nations mobilizing on WW2 scales, because anything less than victory is unacceptable and the UN is simply ignored. So longs as victory is the imperative and great powers are involved then I fail to see why UN sponsored truces etc would have any play at all any more than the League did in 1939. Once again, it all depends on what is at stake.

With that assumption in mind, I would think that a lesser focus on maintaining future force expansion, and a greater focus on upkeep of a currently fieldable force would a NZ's path. NZ would still have the capability to expand the army, but it would not consume such a degree of available resources as it seems to at present.

Well, the current structure does not exactly soak up much of any resources, outside the regulars,all the TF battalions have is rifles, uniforms, packs, and a handful of mortars and a minimum of 20 days training a year after basic, so thats not an issue.

 

[Lucasnz]

It depends on what is at stake and if things go nuclear. If Nuclear weapons are not used from the outset or there is a gentleman's agreement on their use all you get is nations mobilizing on WW2 scales, because anything less than victory is unacceptable and the UN is simply ignored. So longs as victory is the imperative and great powers are involved then I fail to see why UN sponsored truces etc would have any play at all any more than the League did in 1939. Once again, it all depends on what is at stake.

I don't think moblization on WWII is really a viable options now. During the Yom Kippur the US stripped operational units in order to supply the Isreali Air Force with replacement aircraft, during a time when it was still geared up to deal with supplying Vietnam. In other word's we can't build fast enough to replace high tech assets like ships, planes or precision guided weapons. In addition the growing international dependence in sourcing major elements of combat equipment from other nations (aircraft engines, missiles etc) would be a major hinderance, especially if countries choose to remain netural.

I agree that the UN would be unless if my views were incorrect.

Well, the current structure does not exactly soak up much of any resources, outside the regulars,all the TF battalions have is rifles, uniforms, packs, and a handful of mortars and a minimum of 20 days training a year after basic, so thats not an issue.

During the recent Gulf wars, it took 6 months to build up sufficent forces and supplies for the retaking of Kuwait / Invasion of Iraq. I would suggest that timeframe is the max time NZ would have to build up forces, assuming there was some type of warning, which there usually is in major conflicts. I think if the TF has the basic training and builds on it worth operational deployments, then bringing them up to full capability won't be too much of an issue.

While the TF doesn't soak up much is the way of resources, it could be better organised to meet modern reality. A reorganised TF / RF could free up funds for a better equipped force.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I don't think moblization on WWII is really a viable options now. During the Yom Kippur the US stripped operational units in order to supply the Isreali Air Force with replacement aircraft, during a time when it was still geared up to deal with supplying Vietnam. In other word's we can't build fast enough to replace high tech assets like ships, planes or precision guided weapons.

So you simplify what you have or use older easier to build designs, utilize other facets of industry that are convertable to military production like car and truck factories. It is viable..if the will power is there. The expectations of war in 1914 were erroneously based on outcomes from the Russo-Japanese war of 04-05, and others, that nations would be bankrupted or collapse into revolutions after a short period, but no one anticipated it after four years of bloodshed, and production problems sure didn't stop anyone in that war or the one after it.

In addition the growing international dependence in sourcing major elements of combat equipment from other nations (aircraft engines, missiles etc) would be a major hinderance, especially if countries choose to remain netural.

A Hindrance, but not a deal breaker.

I agree that the UN would be unless if my views were incorrect.

?

During the recent Gulf wars, it took 6 months to build up sufficent forces and supplies for the retaking of Kuwait / Invasion of Iraq. I would suggest that timeframe is the max time NZ would have to build up forces, assuming there was some type of warning, which there usually is in major conflicts. I think if the TF has the basic training and builds on it worth operational deployments, then bringing them up to full capability won't be too much of an issue.

The issue with the TF, indeed the army as a whole, is lack of equipment, untill that is solved it's just conjecture. If they did have the gear then possibly.

While the TF doesn't soak up much is the way of resources, it could be better organised to meet modern reality. A reorganised TF / RF could free up funds for a better equipped force.

I suspect that the amount they do use is in no way sufficient for them to be more than what they are now.

In any case, the results of warfare only over the last 65 odd years or less, in no way shows that methods or concepts of the past are somehow irrelevant, because we would be deliberately limiting ourselves only to that evidence that we want to see. To say that war will be fought in a particular way because of very recent history, to the exclusion of the entirety of the history of human warfare, is fallacious, an appeal authority and a strawman, for it ascribes to ourselves a precise knowledge of the future that we do not and cannot possess, based on preselected evidence.

 

[Lucasnz]

So you simplify what you have or use older easier to build designs, utilize other facets of industry that are convertable to military production like car and truck factories. It is viable..if the will power is there. The expectations of war in 1914 were erroneously based on outcomes from the Russo-Japanese war of 04-05, and others, that nations would be bankrupted or collapse into revolutions after a short period, but no one anticipated it after four years of bloodshed, and production problems sure didn't stop anyone in that war or the one after it.

Yes you can simplify what you have, but to what point? The planning for future wars and there outcomes has, regretfully nearly always been based on past wars. Look at the fixed defences of Singapore / France. Based on past theories that were overcome by moblie forces prepared to think outside the square.

A Hindrance, but not a deal breaker.

I not sure whether its a hindrance or a deal breaker, but it is a factor that must be considered. Many nations can build the larger components. The Mk 41 launchers for the ANZAC's were built in NZ (from what I've read), but its the smaller more high tech components that are the key and where the problems IMHO will arise.

?

Sorry should have expanded on that. If the world really came to blows then really the UN would be little mroe than a toothless tiger that would be ignored for reasons of national interest.



Back to work - I'll deal with the TF later. Maybe the TF discussion is better under the Army Discussion board?

 

[Todjaeger]

In any case, the results of warfare only over the last 65 odd years or less, in no way shows that methods or concepts of the past are somehow irrelevant, because we would be deliberately limiting ourselves only to that evidence that we want to see. To say that war will be fought in a particular way because of very recent history, to the exclusion of the entirety of the history of human warfare, is fallacious, an appeal authority and a strawman, for it ascribes to ourselves a precise knowledge of the future that we do not and cannot possess, based on preselected evidence.

I am beginning to wonder if my comments re: Model the NZ Army is following were misunderstood, of if we are having two different discussions?:unknown

To re-phrase the question/concern I have, is structuring the NZ Army so that it can be easily expanded a worthwhile use of resources, as opposed to using a different structure which might function better for rapid deployment or sustained taskforce operations, etc?

IMO, NZ would be better served by following a different structure. It seems unlikely that a situation would arise where NZ has a demand for troops like occured in WWI or WWII when compared to other situations. IMV given the changes that have occured in warfare since WWII, as well as the globalization of defence procurement, it seems even less likely that a situation would arise where NZ would be able to train and field additional troops on a large scale in time, if a conflict did break out.

Part of my reasoning is based on what sort of situations I can see NZ restarting conscription or expanding the volunteer army. The sort of situations where I feel this would apply tend to be very large scale conflicts or those involving countries with defensive agreements. Also, I think (could be wrong on this part) that the expansion or conscription would not be allowed/started until the conflict had started or at least switched to open hostilities, as opposed to in the run-up to a conflict.

The other part is that I feel a conflict with a modern advanced enemy would be more apt to follow, in terms of casualties, estimates NATO had made for some Sovet/Warpac invasions. Namely that there would be significant and mounting losses sustained in a short period of time. AFAIK a US counter to this estimate was developed and trained in the REFORGER exercises, where US National Guardsmen/Reserves would be flown to West Germany (during the Cold War/80's) where they drew pre-positioned equipment and supplies. The expectation was that if a conventional WWIII started with the Soviets, there would be a need for NATO reinforcements in Europe much sooner than the units could be shipped there, nevermind raising, training and equipping the troops.

Hope this clears things up a little bit.

-Cheers

 

[FlashG]

Given the thread title, is it perhaps worthwhile looking at what National has said in its recent discussion paper.

Under "Shaping our defence Force" there are 4 key features, the first is "deployable land forces" followed by "the means to deploy these forces at short notice", "agility and versatility once deployed" and last "patrol and surveillance of the oceans surrounding us". Thus both Labour (existing govt) and National (main opposition) agree on an Army-first NZDF.

Clearly, with the current forces levels, an ability to respond to sudden requirements does lead to the inescapable conclusion that more soldiers are required.

At the Auckland meeting he held last year, National MP Dr Wayne Mapp did actually specifically address regrowing the TF component, as a cheaper way of addressing depth, while trying to get the 2 existing RF battalions into fully-operational levels at all times. I think further manpower is a given, under either government. The cost of that would as always be unwelcome!

One thing about that that I perceive is that TF units even with lower training have the ability to be garrison or guard units on infrastructure freeing fully trained and better equipped units for front-line service.

I would agree with those who say most battles these days are "come as you are", likely with several days / couple of weeks of high intensity combat / losses until the stockpiles of munitions and delivery platforms have run down. Restocking will take many months - at that point, sheer manpower, hulls, airframes or vehicles achieves a quality all of its own. Whether a decision or stalemate (ceasefire) is achieved by the time that happens would entirely depend on who the antagonists were, the objectives reached or not and what the position on the ground was.

 

[recce.k1]

Sorry, what's the url to that discussion paper?

TF's are still being depolyed on overseas peace-keeping operations (according to recent media reports). It must be great experience for them and to further develop their working relationship with the Army (and to free up the Army for other tasks).

But I do hope the TF's conditions and their/employer contributions are improving/being compensated adequately. I know this Govt has been quietly working away on this but a point of difference for the Opposition would be to ensure this is a priority and ensure more meaningful improvements happen/continue etc.

At the end of the day, this Govt is funding the NZDF to full capacity over the next several years, but again a good point of difference for the Opposition would be to ensure the money and training systems/personel are expanded to accelerate this rebuilding process in a shorter timespan. At the end of the day the Army needs to grow another battalion so again the systems should be being put in place to allow this to happen over the next few years, and maintain this, with a view to expansion if the world/regional situation is to remain unstable etc (let's face it, the world and regional situation isn't improving is it. Nor will it. That's the pessimistic reality of this world under alot of change).

So at the moment the two Party's view on defence appears pretty similar. The only way for the Oppostion (or Govt) to really make any meaningful improvements to Defence or ensure it is better equipped and equipment and conditions is regulary improved, is to raise defence expenditure from the currently measilly 1% to at least 1.3 or 1.5% etc of gdp. This would be a good test of the two Party's. I wouldn't think that would be a particularly hard thing to do (to get the point and reasons across to the public) by comparing the cutbacks from the 80's/90's (2%-1%) and what the NZDF was tasked to do then (fighting the Cold war) with the comparison of what is needed to ensure now which is the regional, SE Asian and Middle East peace support and enforcement operations etc. Generally speaking people (mostly) appreciate these highly publicised operations (and the Peace groups look like d**ks everytime now with their flawed reasons why NZ shouldn't be involved - pity for them the previous handy nuclear threat bogeyman can't be factored in again) and frankly whilst the current Govt policy may be perceived as "sensible" for the situation NZ is faced with, having the NZDF stretched and under resourced, cheapening equipment upgrades (Protector) and the like, is showing up that the rhetoric is falling short of reality.

 

[FlashG]

Sorry, I havent made 15 posts, so cant post the URL!

So, go the National party webpage (National.org.nz) then under the Policy Areas on the left hand side choose "Defence and Security". That will bring up another page, scroll down to "downloads".

 

[recce.k1]

Improving NZ-US Relations

This is posted as a general NZDF topic: the improving of NZ-US military relations etc. The Dominion Post also has a feature interview with former US submarine captain and recent defence attache in Wellington, Rick Martinez (although the interview doesn't appear to be on-line at the moment).


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4475857a6000.html
The secret 'matrix' meeting that broke the ice between NZ and US
Bangkok talks put focus on areas where both countries could agree

By Tracy Watkins (Political Editor) - The Dominion Post | Saturday, 12 April 2008

An embassy boardroom in Bangkok has been revealed as the venue for an extraordinary gathering of United States and New Zealand officials to debate a new era in relations.

The gathering of defence, state department, coastguard, law enforcement and foreign affairs officials, held in secret at the New Zealand embassy early in 2006, came up with a plan called the "matrix process" to see whether both countries might be able to cooperate in more areas.

Since that meeting and others in Washington and Wellington, New Zealand defence personnel have served on US hospital ship Peleliu; a four-star general at first refused Pentagon permission to attend a conference in New Zealand has been allowed to make the trip; New Zealand SAS forces in Afghanistan have received a rare presidential citation; Prime Minister Helen Clark returned to the White House for a second time; and the waiver system that acted as a barrier to military training and exercises between the two countries for more than 20 years has been streamlined.

A retiring US defence attache and former nuclear submarine captain, Rick Martinez, has spoken about the gathering, revealing that it helped to "kick off" the new way of tackling issues, including cooperation in the Pacific.

Though both countries have agreed their long-standing differences over New Zealand's anti-nuclear legislation remain, the meeting came as they looked for ways to focus on other areas where they could agree.

Captain Martinez, who has served at the US embassy in Wellington for the past four years, was among the group of about 20 officials who met in Bangkok.

He said their political masters in Washington and Wellington had been fully briefed on the meeting and were supportive of it.

But it appears to have been organised quickly and his first notification of it was when a US embassy staff member in Wellington phoned him when he was already in Bangkok to advise that she was on her way over.

"It was just a big session, where we said, `Okay, we've never done anything like this, but if we're going to move forward in the relationship, what steps need to be taken on both sides?'

"So we called it the matrix process. Because it was just a table of events that needed to happen on both sides to start this process rolling."

US officials emphasised yesterday that "the matrix" process was a "historical reference", but said both countries were continuing to work together and look for ways to expand their cooperation.

Captain Martinez said that, when he arrived in Wellington in 2004, he was surprised to find the anti-nuclear issue was apparently still too raw for either country to put it to one side.

"It seemed that the relationship had essentially been stagnant for the last 20 years."

It also took a personal toll. He removed his daughters from a Wellington school because of anti-American sentiment.

But there had been a significant shift in attitudes on both sides, which had begun building momentum even before Bangkok.

"I think the conditions for change were already in the air ... It seemed like everyone wanted to move the relationship forward."

 

[Todjaeger]

NZDF budget boost?

Recently, Janes had announced that NZ had boosted the NZDF budget by 16% for FY2008-09.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate other confirmation of the increase. What I was wondering is

1. Has the NZDF budget received an increase?
2. What is the intended use for the additional funding?
3. What is the amount of the increase, in real terms (i.e. after any Capital charge)?

If someone can shed any light on this, it would be appreciated...

-Cheers

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Recently, Janes had announced that NZ had boosted the NZDF budget by 16% for FY2008-09.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate other confirmation of the increase. What I was wondering is

1. Has the NZDF budget received an increase?
2. What is the intended use for the additional funding?
3. What is the amount of the increase, in real terms (i.e. after any Capital charge)?

If someone can shed any light on this, it would be appreciated...

-Cheers

Cause I am a nice guy today, here ya go.

Defence news.com

A Few More Dollars for New Zealand Defense
By NICK LEE-FRAMPTON
Published: 23 May 13:58 EDT (09:58 GMT)


WELLINGTON - New Zealand's 2008-09 budget, announced May 22, includes 2.6 billion New Zealand (NZ) dollars ($2.04 billion) for defense.

Defence Minister Phil Goff said the budget invests 276.4 million NZ dollars in the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) over the next four years "as part of our sustained efforts to rebuild and modernize."


"[It] will be used primarily to grow the NZDF and retain existing personnel," he said. "Funding for recruitment and retention is essential … to be able to attract and retain people in the face of a tight labor market, brought about by record low unemployment."

Pay for NZDF personnel is going up in July, with most people to receive between 10 percent and 12 percent more.

New Zealand's defense budget for 2007-08 was 1.9 billion New Zealand dollars.

The budget allocates to the Army more than 774 million NZ dollars, up from last year's 707 million; 658 million NZ dollars for the Royal New Zealand Navy, up from 613 million; and 575 million NZ dollars, up from 550 million, for the Royal New Zealand Air Force.

The Government Communications Security Bureau will get 49 million NZ dollars in the coming year, a boost of 8.5 million, and the Security Intelligence Service budget rises by 3 million NZ dollars to 37 million.

Specific expenditures include:

* 355 million NZ dollars (previously 325 million) for the Army's combat forces.

* 201 million NZ dollars, up from 178 million, for the Air Force's transport fleet (two Boeing 757-200 jets and five C-130H Hercules transports).

* An increase from 385 million NZ dollars to almost 398 million for the Navy's two Anzac-class frigates.

Funding for the Navy's patrol vessels, including four Inshore Patrol Vessels and two Offshore Patrol Vessels, all scheduled for delivery by December, rises from 62 million NZ dollars in 2007-08 to 104 million.

The Navy also will get more money for its P-3 Orion fleet - 167 million NZ dollars, previously 150 million - and its Seasprite helicopters - 82 million, up from 79 million NZ dollars.

The budget for the Air Force's helicopters rises from 119 million NZ dollars to 125 million. That amount effectively is for the service's Number 3 Squadron, which will receive both A109s and NH90s in 2010-11 to replace its Iroquois and Sioux helicopters.

The NZDF's Special Operations Forces budget is increased from 51 million NZ dollars to 63 million.

Also, from Phil Goff, Minister of Defence

Government Press Release

Budget 2008 invests $276.4 million in the New Zealand Defence Force over the next four years as part of our sustained efforts to rebuild and modernise the defence force under this Government, Defence Minister Phil Goff said today.

“This investment will be used primarily to grow the New Zealand Defence Force and retain existing personnel. The $276.4 million is out of the $4.6 billion Defence Sustainability initiative started by this government in 2005.

“This latest instalment in a consistent stream of funding under this government gives Defence the means to fully modernise and enhance its capability, to be able to meets New Zealand’s defence and strategic objectives at home and overseas.

“Funding for recruitment and retention is essential for Defence, like most other large organisations, to be able to attract and retain people in the face of a tight labour market, brought about by record low unemployment,” Phil Goff said.

The Ministry of Defence will also continue the purchase and upgrade of capital equipment including NH90 Helicopters, the P3 Orion fleet, C-130 Hercules and Boeing 757s for use by the New Zealand Defence Force.

“This is funded from the $4 billion 2002 – 2012 Long Term Development Plan started by this government,” Phil Goff said.

This appears to be funding to cover planned and announced purchases.

 

[Todjaeger]

Okay, thanks guys. I had looked at the NZDF site and it had some budgeting information, but did not mention any increase like Janes did. Did not check beehive though.

From the brief rundown on the additions, it appears to be supplemental money for existing programs and operations, as opposed to added capabilities outside of the existing LTDP. It is very good to see an expected 10-12% increase in NZDF personnel pay. Nothing personal though I hope that is for the actual members of the military as opposed to civilian staffers.

-Cheers

 

[RubiconNZ]

Okay, thanks guys. I had looked at the NZDF site and it had some budgeting information, but did not mention any increase like Janes did. Did not check beehive though.

From the brief rundown on the additions, it appears to be supplemental money for existing programs and operations, as opposed to added capabilities outside of the existing LTDP. It is very good to see an expected 10-12% increase in NZDF personnel pay. Nothing personal though I hope that is for the actual members of the military as opposed to civilian staffers.

-Cheers

Yeah a lot of it seems to be supplemental to some of the big upgrades, probably funding some cost overruns like the 757's which required some extra work, I agree great to see a pay rise, hopefully the first of several.

 

[Sea Toby]

While the government wishes to claim every cent of increased spending as new spending, in reality this reflects the higher cost of salaries, and most likely fuel for operations. Inflationary factors are being funded, its not really a significant budget increase for more equipment or for a larger armed force.

When you consider that most of the forces are undermanned, one wonders why this wasn't done earlier. How can the government expect to grow the army another battalion when the current battalions are way under strength? Especially with the technical trades?

Simply put, the government has finally realized that they aren't paying their personnel enough to keep as many as they wish or recruit as many as they wish. Usually the answer is more pay.

 

[recce.k1]

Auditor General to investigate defence contracts

(And who is the better spin-master....?)

Part 1 - Opposition Defence Spokesman, Wayne Mapp, advises that "there are nearly $3 billion of defence contracts underway" and that "virtually all of these contracts are now being investigated by the Auditor General, who will report to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Select Committee by 30 June this year".

Not suprising, as that is the role of the Opposition, Dr Mapp is lining up the Govt and the Defence Minister in his sights and appears to be taking a close look at the Ministry of Defence, the Department that manages defence contracts and project specifications on behalf of the Defence Minister and the Government etc.

The NZDF, which is a seperate entity from the MoD, does not appear to be tarnished with the same brush...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0806/S00203.htm
Mapp Report 13 June 2008
Friday, 13 June 2008, 4:18 pm
Column: New Zealand National Party

Mapp Report 13 June 2008

Planning Required For Defence Procurements

Military hardware - aircraft, ships and armoured vehicles - are amongst the largest capital acquisitions made by government. The New Zealand Defence Force has been replacing virtually all major equipment over the last 12 years, as Vietnam War era gear has been replaced, or radically rebuilt.

New equipment deliveries

The Navy took delivery of the two ANZAC frigates in 1997 and 1999. The Army has had new armoured vehicles (the LAVIII) from 2003 to 2005. More recently the Air Force has contracts for new helicopters, for delivery in the next two years, the Orion aircraft are getting sophisticated new sensors, the Hercules are being rebuilt. The Navy has a second round of new ships with the seven vessels of the Project Protector fleet. And there are many other contracts.

Right now there are nearly $3 billion of defence contracts underway. The priorities are set by the government, especially the overall specifications, the price cap and the timeframe for delivery. That is the Minister's job. The contracts are managed by around 30 people within the Ministry of Defence, supplemented by specialist officers from NZDF. Virtually all of these contracts are now being investigated by the Auditor General, who will report to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Select Committee by 30 June this year.

Project Protector contract

Let's look at one contract in particular - Project Protector. This contract is for seven ships with a total cost of $500 million. The principal ship in the contract is the multirole vessel (HMNZS Canterbury). The government had the choice of two different designs for this ship. They chose a one-off design, even though the other choice was a well proven naval ship in service with three navies, including the Royal Navy.

Canterbury problems

The Canterbury has been fraught with problems, some relating to fundamental design, others to the rushed nature of the contract. The ship is adapted from a roll on roll off ferry. These ships are known to have stability problems when lightly laden, which is the typical state for a military ship.

The ship's landing craft have to be craned off from a deck around 15 metres above the waterline. The landing craft are then driven around to a stern door to unload cargo. All this requires very calm seas. The alternative design had an internal dock, with the landing craft stored in the internal dock; an inherently superior system. In addition, the small inflatable boats (RIBs) are stored in slots a few metres above the waterline. The tendency of the vessel to roll means the RIBs can be washed out in heavy seas, which has already happened.

Government to blame

The Navy now has to make do with the Canterbury. But it is the government that should take the blame for the decision to buy a one off ship with inherent flaws. The other ships of the Project Protector fleet also have problems. The first of the Inshore Patrol vessels has failed a Lloyds' survey due to a series of faults, including inadequate fire suppression systems.

After all the problems experienced with the Canterbury, the Navy has sensibly made the decision not to accept any of the other six ships into service until all the problems are fixed.

Defence White Paper proposed

It is National's proposal, should we be elected, to have a White Paper on Defence. The procurement issues will have a special focus. We owe it to our servicepeople and to the country that Defence contracts be much better planned and managed than has occurred under the current government.

Part 2 - TV3 picks up the story (in typical media opening hyperbole) and quotes the Opposition saying that the Auditor General's report "will heavily criticise many of the projects".

Of interest is the situation within the Ministry of Defence and an off the record criticism.

Also Wayne Mapp's comment about possibly merging the MoD and NZDF again ("Defence", along with the rest of the Public Sector was restructured during the late 1980's. Put simply policy and advice became the responsibility of the MoD and managing the military and delivering on Govt defence policy became the responsibility of the NZDF).

The Project Protector is now drawing a lot of flack from the Opposition...

http://www.3news.co.nz/News/Reporte...abid/423/articleID/59612/cat/186/Default.aspx (plus on-line video)
Report expected to be critical of Ministry of Defence
Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:01p.m.

The Auditor-General is about to drop a bomb on the defence force after investigating 10 major defence contracts worth nearly $3 billion.

The National Party says the report, due out this month, will heavily criticise many of the projects.

The 'Javelin' is our military's latest missile system. They are state-of-the-art, they are deadly, and at more than $100,000 apiece, they do not come cheap.

The Javelin is one of 10 major defence contracts that are part of a major investigation by the auditor-general.

Others include the seven-vessel Project Protector Fleet, which is failing to deliver on-time and in-budget; the Augusta-Westland light utility helicopter project, yet to be delivered but already $35 million over budget and the NH90 helicopter fleet, more than $400 million over budget.

National's defence spokesman Wayne Mapp says that is a matter of serious public concern.

"The Government doesn't buy many things that are a billion dollars, and to have one of those contracts sort of basically double within price within a couple of months is highly unsatisfactory," says Mr Mapp.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is responsible for the purchase of these big-ticket items. Mr Mapp says it is unprecedented for the auditor-general to be looking at so many.

"You've got 10 major acquisition projects, all of them are being investigated by the auditor-general. That tells you you've got a deep systemic problem within the Ministry of Defence."

The Auditor-General's office would not comment on their upcoming report. But sources have told 3 News its criticism of the MOD will single out a lack of coherent management systems across the department, and a lack of experience among some of its staff.

We wanted to ask the head of the MOD's acquisition division about the cost over-runs and other problems with their projects. But Bruce Green, the deputy defence secretary in charge of purchases resigned in February and has yet to be replaced. The acting deputy secretary did not return our calls.

However, a senior army officer 3 News spoke to was fiercely critical of most MOD personnel. He says: "The average person I have to deal with is a pimply-faced 25-year-old with a degree in political science who doesn't know a thing."

National this week described defence acquisitions like the half-billion-dollar Project Protector as a "naval disaster", and Mr Mapp says he will look at merging the MOD back into the New Zealand defence force if National enters government.

He is also considering calling for an independent review of the Navy's Canterbury purchase. If he gets his way, it will be the sixth report into the ship since 3 News uncovered concerns about the Canterbury late last year.

Source - 3 News

Part 3 - Defence Minister Phil Goff responds and advises "he had been briefed on the (Auditor General's) report and it would only contain minor criticisms" and rejects Wayne Mapps asertions that the AG's report will criticise the MoD etc.

(Question: can a Minister or the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet re-direct the Office of Auditor General terms of reference mid-way into a report??? This is something the media should be checking etc).

Project Protector is now looking extremely precarious as Phil Goff is stated to have said that "the delivery of some of those boats had been indefinitely delayed as Tenix had been unable to get approval from maritime certifier Lloyds". This is the first time that the term "indefinitely delayed" has been used that I have seen, as previously the remaining ships were simply behind schedule, I'm suprised (well maybe I'm not) that the media has not jumped on the DefMin and made this a much bigger issue. (Mind you, perhaps Phil Goff is simply playing hard ball with Tenix, one assumes then they haven't been paid fully and thus are being asked to fix the problems or some of them under a warranty etc. Anyone know more about these details etc)?

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/10222/goff-defends-defence-purchases
Goff defends defence purchases
Thu, 19 Jun 2008

Defence Minister Phil Goff says an Auditor-General's report into major defence purchases will largely exonerate the Defence Force's acquisitions programme.

The report is yet to be released, but Mr Goff today told Parliament's foreign affairs, defence and trade committee he had been briefed on the report and it would only contain minor criticisms.

These were aimed at the need for more frequent and detailed progress updates to the committee and the public on how it was going.

"I can tell you right here and now that report, from my understanding of it, does not assert weak or poor performance or negligence by the ministry at all in managing defence acquisition projects."

A week ago National's defence spokesman Wayne Mapp said the report would make grim reading.

His comments followed several high-profile problems with the navy's acquisition of seven ships, dubbed Project Protector.

The first of those ships, the multi-role HMNZS Canterbury, has been confined to New Zealand waters while multiple problems are sorted out.

The largest problem is low open alcoves on either side of the ship for two rigid hull inflatable boats (RHIBs) after one of the RHIBs was lost in high seas.

The navy was also to get two offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) and four inshore patrol craft (IPCs).

Mr Goff today said the delivery of some of those boats had been indefinitely delayed as Tenix had been unable to get approval from maritime certifier Lloyds.

He said that was Tenix's responsibility and the Government was negotiating who would pay for the other problems.

National has also criticised a sharp escalation in the final costs of 13 new helicopters from their original estimates.

Dr Mapp today said those issues seemed to indicate major problems in the Defence Force and Defence Ministry's capacity to conduct major purchases.

But Mr Goff said major defence purchases were complex and New Zealand's processes had been smooth compared with problems encountered by Australia, Britain and the United States.

Australia had spent $1.3 billion on a botched Seasprite helicopter acquisition programme, Britain had an order of Chinook helicopters that were nine years overdue and the United States had coastal patrol ships that were years late and had doubled in price.

"That has not happened in New Zealand."

In the case of the helicopters, their price had only risen in relation to the first estimates before it was even decided what kind of helicopter would be purchased. There had been almost no escalation in the price signed off by Cabinet.

The Auditor-General's report is expected to be released at end of next week.

Source - NZPA

 

[MrConservative]

Clause 5.4 of the Terms of Reference for the Review into the Canterbury basically lets the Defence Minister decide what actually gets released to Kevin Brady the Auditor General.

But that wont stop AG Kevin Brady from finding out though. He is quite the investigator. It will take a another review under a new regime to get to the bottom of this disaster.

It is the political "safety valve" clause you have when you have a disaster to hide. Will it address the fundamental issue here? That being Project Protector was starved of proper investment due to a political decision at cabinet level and the tight and hostile reins that Treasury places on Defence in general. That because of the starvation of funds, the cheap option was taken concerning just about everything.

The Sealift Review in 2000 basically said that a new purpose built vessel for the NZDF was to cost around NZ400 million. This whole project of seven ships cost a little of NZ500 million - so far!

 

[Lucasnz]

The auditor generals report has been released and can be found here

What got me is some of the time delays in getting this equipment into service. While some of it won't be defence's fault, I believe the majority is.