NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

Auditor-General's Report

At least Radio NZ has made an effort to grill the main players. Some interesting interviews for those that are interested etc. TVNZ, NZ's primary news source, didn't even report on the issue last night!

Radio NZ Checkpoint interview with the Minister of Defence, Phil Goff (26/06/2008 @ 1713hrs NZST)
"Defence Cost Blowouts: The defence force has been told to do a better job of explaining big cost blowouts and time delays". (duration: 7′31″)
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ckpt/defence_cost_blowouts

Radio NZ Morning Report interview with the Secretary of Defence, John McKinnon (27/06/2008 @ 0710hrs).
"Auditor-General Has Criticised Defence Over-spend: The Auditor-General has slated the handling of major spending projects by the Ministry of Defence. (duration: 7′51″)"
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/auditor-general_has_criticized_defence_over_spend
Or download podcast http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mn...ral_Has_Criticized_Defence_Over_Spend-048.mp3

Radio NZ Morning Report interview with the Minister of Defence, Phil Goff and Opposition Defence Spokeman, Wayne Mapp (27/06/2008 @ 0810hrs).
"Secretary of Defence Accepts Criticisms: A report on ten major acquisition projects found it was impossible to keep track of escalating budgets". (duration: 7′17″)
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/secretary_of_defence_accepts_criticisms
Or download podcast http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20080627-0810-Secretary_of_Defence_Accepts_Criticisms-048.mp3

Radio NZ Nine To Noon interview with former Chief of Naval Staff, Rear Admiral Jack Welsh (Rtd) (27/06/2008 @ 0925hrs).
"Defence Force financial Wastage: Is our Defence Force wasting hundreds of millions of dollars through cost overruns and delays. (duration: 13′53″)
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/defence_force_financial_wastage
Or download podcast http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20080627-0925-Defence_Force_financial_Wastage-048.mp3

 

[MrConservative]

McCully's Response to Auditor Generals Report

Shadow Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Murray McCully’s take on the A-G’s Report.

Defence Flunks Acquisition Audit

Regular readers of this newsletter will be aware that the worldwide headquarters of mccully.co is more than a little exercised over the inability of our Defence Ministry to competently manage the process of purchasing major equipment. The LAVs, the LOVs, the multi-role vessel, the patrol boats, and the helicopters – you name it: each new contract has attracted new criticism and new attention from the Auditor-General (A-G). So when the A-G decided to have a look at all of the major acquisitions undertaken in recent years to assess the nature of any systemic problems (of which there are clearly many) MPs and commentators alike breathed a sigh of relief. Now, surely, we would find out what went amiss in all of these cases. Right? Wrong!"

The bad news starts in the foreword:

“My staff were unable to complete the audit as originally intended. A lot of the detailed information that I expected the defence agencies to have was not readily available."

So the Auditor-General, having made the significant, even momentous decision to review all ten recent major Defence acquisition projects together has had to make the equally momentous decision to abandon his audit because the Ministry can’t give him the information to audit. How bad is that?
And the Parliament, frustrated by ongoing blowouts in major projects like the NH90 helicopters (about a $300 million increase on what was supposed to be a $500m budget), which had expected the A-G to identify the causes so that the solutions could be monitored, is now left shaking its head in wonderment.
Equally serious is the focus on the continued failure of Defence to actually deliver new acquisitions on timetable. The A-G chronicles a saga of ongoing but unexplained delays. But if Defence can't supply the A-G with information, the A-G can't tell Parliament how to fix that either. Although the report gives a very strong clue as to the real problem.

The A-G focuses on the major blowouts, which have occurred between the Approval to Commence (when Cabinet gives a green light to proceed with a project) and the Approval to Commit (when Cabinet agrees that a contract can be signed). The Capability Management Framework (CMF) is the Defence rulebook for managing such contracts. The A-G notes that "the CMF states that accurate cost estimations are critical at the Approval to Commence stage." Yet Defence has told the A-G that "cost estimates at this point are, at best an 'intelligent guess’”. (The word “intelligent” in this context clearly used with a heavy sense of irony).

In other words, Defence have not followed their own rulebook and the report gives little confidence that they have any intention of doing so in future. The A-G states, "my staff and the Ministry of Defence disagreed on the point in the acquisition process from which changes should be monitored and reported" (which is very unfortunate because the CMF rule-book is very clear that the A-G is right and the Ministry wrong). The A-G is clear in his view that when Defence seek Cabinet approval to commence a project of this sort, they should supply "robust" estimates, and that any changes from that point should be clearly monitored and reported. But Defence have ignored both their own rulebook, and the clear view of the A-G. Worse, their Minister, Phil Goff, is clearly complicit in this clear breach of accountability requirements.

The report sheds no light on how the Ministry has managed to superintend the construction of in-shore and off-shore patrol boats that flunked their Lloyds survey, or how they managed to construct a multi-role vessel with all of the seaworthiness capabilities of a wallowing pig. But those questions will wait. In all of this the approach and demeanour of Defence Minister Phil Goff has been deeply revealing. Rather than insisting that CMF guidelines are adhered to and demanding explanations as to why his Ministry is blowing out budgets and purchasing dodgy gear, Goff has been insisting that the report is good news because it doesn't reveal incompetence or negligence (which, given that the auditor can't find anything to audit, is hardly surprising).
While the new Secretary of Defence, John McKinnon, gives every impression that he is intent on a tidy-up, Goff is doing precisely the opposite. All of which indicates that Goff is very much part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Ends

This interim report from the Auditor General is a damning indictment on the Ministry of Defence and the Labour Government. Though Goff is the current Minister and is the one in the gun the real blame needs to be bought home to the previous Minister Mark Burton (1999-2005). Goff is still not without blame as he has had three years as Defence Minister to sort this incompetence out. Cullen (Finance) and Clark (PM) the two other Principle Cabinet ministers who have had ultimate political oversight on Defence since 1999 are also responsible as they have set both the fiscal and political agenda for Defence that has led to this failure and the other issues that have preceded it.

The report outlines a number of serious issues. The following extracts from the report are significant.

Cl 1.25
Our audit work mainly involved reviewing project files and documents held by the Ministry and the NZDF at Defence Headquarters in Wellington. For the most part, we focused on information held by the Ministry. We tried to complete a standard set of information for each acquisition project. This proved extremely difficult and time-consuming. It led to a number of queries and information gaps, which we tried to resolve by working closely with the Defence agencies’ staff.

[This should not ever happen. It is only through incompetence or as I outlined in my previous post Clause 5.7 of the Terms of Reference was used as an estoppal. Probably a bit of both.]

From the Inquiry Terms of Reference

Cl 5.7
If there are any disputes about whether information should be provided to the Reviewer, whether because of reasons of security, commercial confidentiality or any other reason, the Minister of Defence will decide whether the information is disclosed, and any conditions on its disclosure to the Reviewer.

Cl 1.26
However, it became clear that the Ministry’s project monitoring and reporting systems in particular were not able to readily produce much of the detailed information needed to explain changes to costs, time frames, and essential user requirements for each project. This was particularly so for historical information about projects that have spanned several years.

[A classic example of this was Mistral. Acquired under the previous Government as part one of the acquisition project but it took a 6-year delay to get VCAS to make the system fully operational.

The Report also states that in the LOV project the government required at first 83 Armoured LOV’s but somehow they ended up with 60. There has been no explanation why 23 Armoured LOV’s that were required by the NZDF were converted into 23 standard LOV’s. 321 LOV’s were acquired as per the budget but, why in the second tranche were the full capability requirement of 83 Armoured LOV’s acquired? What was the rationale behind the change and who made the decision? I get the impression that the NZDF is the poor cousin in all of this – there has been an attitude of “you will make do” from the Ministry and Cabinet as well as “Do as we say and say what we tell you.” For a small Army 23 less Armoured LOV’s is quite significant. Maybe that’s WMR has only six at their disposal.]

Cl 3.6
These difficulties have implications for the transparency of the acquisition process. There is also a risk that the outcome of an acquisition is a capability that does not meet the essential user requirements that were defined by the NZDF at the start of the project.

[The AG through lack of transparent information was only able to hint at the capability wind-back of Project Protector and not get to the point of why it was capped and persisted to be capped when it was apparent that the total project was under-funded in terms of the budget appropriations required to deliver the capability requirements.]

Cl 3.21
The Ministry’s practice of entering into firm fixed-price contracts, where the risk is borne by the contractor, provides a reason for the variations being so small. However, without access to more complete information, we cannot confirm whether the Defence agencies have made capability and/or time trade-offs to remain within the approved budget. In our view, the Ministry’s reports do not provide some important and useful information. For example, they do not show:

• What cost changes there have been compared with budgeted costs to make up the overall variance, and the reasons for the changes;
• How much of the project contingency has been used;
• How much of future expenditure is uncommitted; and
• How foreign exchange fluctuations have affected project costs set at the Approval to Commit point.

[Overall what I found pleasing about the interim report was that AG Kevin Brady widened the original brief from being purely a review of Project Protector into a widened (though hampered) report into all recent Defence acquisitions. Though the review is bad news all round, at least it is a start to the recovery in terms of Defence. What I think will suffice to turn this very unhappy state of affairs around will be not just another White Paper but a full independent Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Ministry of Defence (This is the chance where people involved are actually put under oath to give oral evidence in front of a Supreme Court Justice and not just a paper trail collection like the terms of reference allowed in the scope of this inquiry) like what happened after the Air New Zealand disaster. Does anyone remember the classic phrase of Justice Mahon “An organized litany of lies”? That phrase may well come in useful again because when it comes to the last 9 years it is particularly apt.]

 

[Sea Toby]

It appears New Zealand desperately needs a bi-partisan Government Accounting Office similar to the United States. Its becoming obvious the present government isn't accountable for anything.

 

[recce.k1]

It appears New Zealand desperately needs a bi-partisan Government Accounting Office similar to the United States.

Out of interest, and if you have the time, can you please briefly explain how the GAO works?

 

[MrConservative]

It appears New Zealand desperately needs a bi-partisan Government Accounting Office similar to the United States. Its becoming obvious the present government isn't accountable for anything.

The Office of the Auditor General is meant to be Independent and essentially is like the GAO. Separate from political parties and ministries. What the problem is - is that the AG does not have powers of prosecution. Only investigation. He can only report and recommend to the Executive to take action. He can not indicate what that action should be.

The fundamental problem is that their is an unbalance between the powers of the Executive i.e The PM and Cabinet, and the other arms of state. This is because NZ does not have a fully defined constitution and operates at the margins via way of parliamentary conventions. For many years this worked well but in the last 9 years many of the conventions have been abused. (I could expand on this but this is "Defencetalk" and not "Constituitional Lawtalk".)

It is through this constitutional weakness and for the fact that we are the only Westminister style democracy with a unicameral house of representatives that we can end up being abused by a government that is not accountable expect for the General Elections. They have even tried to gerrymander these with the Electoral Finance Act. Roll on October 18th or whenever the Old Trout will call an election.

 

[recce.k1]

Of interest to some? NZ-US relations.

Rice hails warmer NZ ties
Jul 26, 2008 9:51 PM
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1945806

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Saturday hailed warmer ties with New Zealand but offered no commitment on a free trade deal the Pacific nation wants with Washington.

In a rare visit by the top US diplomat to New Zealand, Rice said the relationship was in "good shape" after tense ties in the 1980s and 1990s.

"New Zealand is certainly seen as a friend and an ally," said Rice at a joint news conference with Prime Minister Helen Clark.

The reference to New Zealand as an ally was one of the strongest public statements of support for Wellington since relations between the two countries were ruptured in the mid-1980s by New Zealand's anti-nuclear policy.

The policy prevented US naval vessels from docking in New Zealand because the United States refused to either confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board.

The US retaliated by banning military exercises with New Zealand. Asked whether Washington might consider lifting this ban, Rice was noncommittal.

"We have in recent years moved beyond a whole list of problems and we have really structured our relationship and our cooperation to meet the post-September 11 challenges," Rice said, referring to shared interests such Afghanistan, trade and environmental issues.

Around 60 people braved gale-force winds and driving rain to hold a noisy but peaceful demonstration opposing the United States's role in Iraq and treatment of detainees.

Clark, a critic of the US invasion of Iraq, said the two nations were looking to what they had in common.

"Both sides acknowledge it (the relationship) is in a very good state today. We have both worked hard on that," Clark said.

But Rice offered no timeline on when a free trade deal might be brokered between the two nations, either bilaterally or via the so-called P4 group of nations - New Zealand, Singapore, Brunei and Chile - which already have a trade arrangement.

"I will take back the considerable interest that continues to be there on a free trade agreement," she said. "The United States should be committed to free trade agreements."

New Zealand's case for a full trade agreement with the United States, its second-biggest trading partner after Australia, was pressed by Foreign Minister Winston Peters in talks earlier in the day.

He said New Zealand had effectively "half a free trade agreement with the United States" because it allowed tariff-free entry to most US goods and was worthy of a free trade deal.

"But we are positive about this 21st century relationship, and we will get there one day, and sooner than people think," Peters added.

New Zealand's major exports to the United States include meat, dairy products, wine and timber.

Rice is the first Secretary of State to visit New Zealand in a decade and her staff said the two-day trip was part of an effort to become more involved in Pacific issues and improve what they see as a continual warming of ties with Wellington.

Peters will fly with Rice on her plane to the island of Samoa this weekend, where the two will join Pacific foreign ministers for discussions about the region, including Fiji.

Source: Reuters

NZ 'ally' and close friend of US - Rice
4:56PM Saturday July 26, 2008
By Edward Gay and NZPA
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10523625&ref=rss

The United States Secretary of State has described New Zealand as an "ally" and a close friend.

Prime Minister Helen Clark held discussions with Condoleezza Rice at Government House in Auckland this afternoon.

They discussed the political situation in Zimbabwe and the conflict in Afghanistan.

Helen Clark said the increase in the price of fuel and food was also discussed.

Dr Rice said it had been a full agenda.

"I want to agree and underscore the points that you have made about the state of relations between New Zealand and the United States. I believe that they are in very good shape," Dr Rice said

She said the countries shared common goals and common interests in Afghanistan and in the Pacific.

"We share a desire to see the entire Pacific one in which democracy reigns and therefore the issues in Fiji have been a concern to us," Dr Rice said.

She said she was looking forward to the evening meal and music to be hosted by Helen Clark this evening.

She also made mention of the "spirited match" between the All Blacks and Australia tonight.

Question of China

When the pair were questioned about the safety of athletes in China during the Olympics and China's Human Rights record, Helen Clark said China was aware it would be under the spotlight.

"In our countries we are used to having dissent expressed in a way in which it is peaceful. If it goes over that boundary then there's always a response but you would have noticed today that we conducted our talks amongst the backdrop of a rather noisy crowd," she said.

Helen Clark said Chinese authorities needed to deal with any protests with a "measured response".

Dr Rice agreed and said China should be show-casing not only the Olympics but also "openess and tolerance".

She said security would be tight but should not be used "as a cover to try and deal with dissent".

Protesters

While Dr Rice and Helen Clark met, protesters approached police armed with batons outside Government House to "negotiate with police to arrest Condoleezza Rice".

About 100 protesters braved the pouring rain in Auckland, holding banners bearing the US Secretary of State's photograph and a slogan saying "wanted for war crimes".

They also held a large banner saying "USA a terrorist state".

There were tense moments when the protesters moved a police barricade on Glenfell Place, in Mount Eden, forward.

Police officers stood on the other side of the barricade with hands crossed as protesters shouted "Condoleezza Rice, not very nice" and demanded to speak to a senior police officer to arrest her.

A senior officer was present but did not address protesters, who then moved back to the intersection of Mountain Road and Glenfell Place.

Yesterday, Auckland police district commander Superintendent Brett England said anyone trying to carry out such an arrest faced "very serious consequences".

Peters

Dr Rice earlier said the relationship between the United States and New Zealand was on a "good footing".

Following a one-hour meeting with Foreign Minister Winston Peters, Dr Rice praised New Zealand's role in nuclear non-proliferation and in Afghanistan.

"I appreciate very much New Zealand's contribution in Bamyan province in Afghanistan. The First Lady has come back with really glowing reports with what New Zealand was doing down there," Dr Rice said.

She also thanked the New Zealand government for their work on returning Fiji to a democracy.

Dr Rice said she would be telling Pacific Forum leaders that the only way for Fiji to return to a democracy was through fair and open elections.

Questioned on the possibility of a Free Trade deal with New Zealand, she said President Bush had signed a record number of agreements.

Dr Rice said she would be returning to the US with news that New Zealand was keen for an agreement but did not commit further.

She was also questioned on the relationship between the two countries, given New Zealand's continued anti-nuclear stance.

"US and New Zealand have moved on. If there are remaining issues to be addressed then we should address them," Dr Rice said.

Mr Peters told the media that while the US had access to New Zealand markets, New Zealand companies did not have the same opportunities but "we will get there one day".

As to shared military training exercises, Dr Rice said that if "issues" remained between the two countries then they should be addressed. She said given the two countries working relationship in Afghanistan and maritime security, the relationship had been strengthened and that all "remaining obstacles" should be examined.

Mr Peters said the discussions had been fruitful.

"Discussions today have been extremely profitable and I think they will be the same again with the Prime Minister this afternoon," Mr Peters said.

Heavy rain forced the cancellation of a powhiri planned for Dr Rice this morning.

Rice hints at thaw in US-NZ relations
7:30PM Saturday July 26, 2008
By Political editor Audrey Young
http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/audrey-young/2008/7/26/rice-hints-thaw-us-nz-relations/?c_id=280

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was not the only person to call New Zealand an ''ally'' today.

Former Prime Minister Jim Bolger used the word, too, when he spoke at a reception tonight for Rice hosted by the NZ-US Council which he chairs.

Bolger referred to Rice's concept of ''transformational diplomacy'' – which he described as the US working with partners around the world to create well governed, sustainable democratic states.

''In New Zealand you can find no better ally for this purpose whether in Afghanistan or much closer to home here in the Pacific. ''

And Bolger also raised a few eyebrows with his salutory reference to Barack Obama's speech [to 200,000 people] in Berlin this week.

''I want to conclude and borrow and paraphrase a line from the soaring rhetoric of Senator Obama in Berlin two days ago and say that any remaining walls between old friends and allies, the United States and New Zealand, should now come down.''

Rice called New Zealand an ''ally'' during a press conference with New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark.

''New Zealand is certainly seen as a friend and an ally,'' she said in a surprising departure from the ''friend'' status held since the Anzus rift in 1984.

She made her comment in response to a question asking whether military exercises between the two countries would resume and whether New Zealand was a friend or an ally.

Her predecessor, Colin Powell, referred to New Zealand in 2002 as ''very, very, very close friends.''

Rice's reference could have been no slip of the tongue.

She will have been in no doubt as to the importance New Zealand places on the term ''ally'' – that it denotes membership of an elite club of friends.

It seems likely that use of the term today, suitably reinforced by the elder-statesman Bolger, is not a a sign that the US wants to re-admit New Zealand to that club but that it wants to redefine the term for the 21st century.

At a press conference at Government House in Auckland, when asked whether the nuclear issue was a "relic" she said: "As to past disputes, the United States and New Zealand have I think moved on and if there are remaining issues to be addressed, then we should try to address them."

"This is a very broad and deepening relationship and it is going to continue to be so and it by no means a relationship that is somehow harnessed to or constrained by the past."

When asked if the US should lift its ban on defence forces exercising together, she said:

"The relationship is not stuck in the past and there have been a lot of changes in the world since that time. And if there are remaining issue to be addressed then I think we have got to find a way to address them because the relationship between New Zealand and the United States is such a beneficial one and such a fruitful one for co-operation along a wide range of issues."

Rice held her press conference with Foreign Minister Winston Peters after talks here and they are now off lunching together before Rice joins Helen Clark for talks. [We are scoffing a dozen pizzas ordered by the US embassy].

And what a difference a night makes. Peters was composed and charming in stark contrast to his abysmal press conference yesterday where he failed to address reasonable questions about Bob Jones' donation to his party.

It is unfortunate that his domestic political turmoil has infected the Rice visit.

It could have been avoided if Peters had taken a measured approach to the secret donations story and upon his return to New Zealand yesterday acknowledged they were serious issues with serious implications, that he needed to talk to brother and officials about it after Dr Rice had left and that he would report fully and frankly at Parliament next week.

Instead, he finished yesterday's press conference in worse shape than he began, fuelling the story, inflaming Bob Jones who has now accused of lying and so it came up at the Rice press conference.

TV3's Duncan Garner asked him what he thought about Bob Jones having accused him last night of lying.

Peters: "I can't wait to get down to Parliament next week and to deal with the three versions of Bob Jones' stories from Bob Jones. But I want to deal with this matter today which is so much more important.

"Next week you'll get all the answers you need. But all I would ask you to do in the meantime is find out which of the three versions that Bob Jones has given you you believe and today I would like to concentrate on a very, very serious visit to this country and on important issues to do with our relationship in the 21st century. "

He turned to Rice and said she need not answer that question. Much jocularity.

Both the thaw and the Peters-donations issue is bound to come up again when Clark and Rice hold their press conference. soon.

 

[mattyem]

deployment

Such a deployment is unfesable;
Under streanth battalions
MRV limited operation capabillity due to warranty issues from ship builder
Maintenace issues with air force hurcs
Lack of technicians for frigates
Funding or lack of from the NZ government
Lack of support and infilstructure in maintaining a deployment
all that for starters

Also for the size of the force, the effect it would have would depend on the tasking giving to it. Logically given the size and structure of the force, only limited operations would be entrusted to a force of this size.

 

[mattyem]

project protector

Tenix clowned to opv contract delivering vessels over weight which reduces operational life span by half, NZ has refused to take deliverly until all issues are resolved, the RHIBS where also not in accordance with the contract now the RNZN is seeking an appropriate replacement of them.

Lets hope the MoD, RNZN and government learn from all this. The lack of delivery is also not helped by a BAE take over of tenix

 

[mattyem]

new zealand as a regional power

I can never envisage this happening, Currently with a non existant strike wing, under strength battalions, and an under manned navy, all I can say is dreams are free!

 

[Gibbo]

Such a deployment is unfesable;
Under streanth battalions
MRV limited operation capabillity due to warranty issues from ship builder
Maintenace issues with air force hurcs
Lack of technicians for frigates
Funding or lack of from the NZ government
Lack of support and infilstructure in maintaining a deployment
all that for starters

Also for the size of the force, the effect it would have would depend on the tasking giving to it. Logically given the size and structure of the force, only limited operations would be entrusted to a force of this size.

I think we all appreciate that even if NZDF were fully manned & equipped with all planned (LTDP) equipment they'd still only be used largely in 'supporting' roles - except for NZSAS & perhaps a few other key capabilties...although I guess this would depend upon the specific sceanario & how 'desparate' things were!!!

 

[KiwiRob]

To be honest, if New Zealand really wanted to be a regoinal military power they will seriously need to increase their defense budget. They will need to buy fighter jets, tactical bombers, more helicopters and transports then they have. They will need a sizeable force of tanks, APC, artillery and attack helicopters. Their Navy will need aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, more frigates and nuclear submarines. They should increase the size of their military from around 8,700 to around 100,000 and maybe even a few nukes to throw in. But of course someone will replie to my comment and say that their are no threats out their and New Zealand does not need any of this, and their Government under control by the Labour from Helin Clark thinks the same as well. But something like that is what New Zealand will need if they really want to become a military power. But no one here or in the New Zealand Government wants New Zealand to become a military power and so they will remain a small isolated country with a small military and they will never become a major or a regional military power.

And we need all that force in an Area of the world where people still wear grass skirts and live in mud huts, pull the other one, how many countries anywhere near NZ currently have armed forces with that kind of power. To all intents and purposes NZ is a regional power in our region of the world.

 

[Sea Toby]

What is good is that New Zealand is a long way from its enemies, surrounded by seas. New Zealand doesn't have land borders with anyone. This moat is a two way street. Great for defense, horrible for offense.

Since New Zealand does not have territorial gains in mind, the nation maintains a credible defense posture. Unfortunately, that posture doesn't provide much of an offense either.

Fortunately, being so small in numbers, New Zealand has a defense relationship with Australia. New Zealand sees its in its own interests to have such a relationship, along with being good neighbors with its nearby neighbors. Much of its defense budget is focused to provide the air lift, and sea lift for its small army.

 

[mattyem]

Agree,

The NZDF is constructed as a primary attack or assault force, but more set for acting as a supporting force with other nations.

In saying that, it isnt entirely dependant on a 'host' nation but in terms of large scale ops we would fall short if going it alone (just my opinion)

I also fell the need that the NZAMRY should develop a high readiness infantry company always available for rapid deployment, so we are always ready to deploy at short notice.

I have seen a number of operations fall through, just because that short term readiness capability isnt there. In saying that, the nzarmy is currently stretched as is due to the numbers of troops in afghan and timor leste.

I also think a High readiness Infantry company would maintain an even higher level of profressionalism and give us more options to deploy to "higher risk" ops than just sas.

Would also be a good intermediate gap between regular force and SF

 

[mattyem]

I would agree with kiwirob,

In terms of geographical location, I guess we do have a slight pull of regional power. Though not as much compared with the aussies.

Down in the south pacific it tends to be more political power than anything else.

 

[old faithful]

I would love to see the KIWI,s increase their chopper fleet by 4 more NH90,s.
the Navy by 1 more frigate and 2 more ASW helo,s, and the Army by 1 more inf bn.
Then i beleive they could contribute a hell of a lot more to their alliance with Australia. NZ is most definatly a regional power right now. Power is more than tanks and PGM,s, the NZ dollar, and economy is in pretty good shape compared to say the Solomans, PNG, Fiji, Vanuatu and even competitive to SE Asian economys. Dont forget that NZ has some very good friends, some have big sticks!

 

[steve33]

I,ve stated in earlier posts one of the best things the New Zealand army could do was set up a Ranger school with standards based on the level of the U.S army 75th Ranger regiment.

We couldn,t have a stand alone Ranger battalion bu we could having people getting there Ranger tab and going back to there battalion a far better soldier and it would certainly be a good thing for section and platoon leaders to do encouraging the people there leading to match the standards they are setting.

It would lift the standards of the New Zealand infantry battalions even higher and have soldiers available with the standards to support the SAS if needed.

 

[mattyem]

The above makes alot of sense, in terms of what we need it doesnt sound like too much to ask. If only the government would see tings the same way.

I guess manning issues steers alot of what happens in terms of what the NZDF recieves and what it doesnt

 

[mattyem]

I know the 2nd/1st bat based out of burnham use to have a parachute com in the early 90's that based around a ranger type of training but was disbanded. Though im not entirely sure why.

It would be a good idea to have the training in place and have the soldiers return to their batt. It would take back the professionalism to their batt and it would filter down (in theory) down to section level.

In my mind it would give soldiers that much more to strive for and increase the overall effectiveness of the soldiers

 

[battlensign]

I would love to see the KIWI,s increase their chopper fleet by 4 more NH90,s.
the Navy by 1 more frigate and 2 more ASW helo,s, and the Army by 1 more inf bn.
Then i beleive they could contribute a hell of a lot more to their alliance with Australia. NZ is most definatly a regional power right now. Power is more than tanks and PGM,s, the NZ dollar, and economy is in pretty good shape compared to say the Solomans, PNG, Fiji, Vanuatu and even competitive to SE Asian economys. Dont forget that NZ has some very good friends, some have big sticks!

That sounds like a good plan there.........more......reasonable than some of the suggestions being bandied about.

Can I just make one point though.........economic power is fine (but not much of it in an economy of only 125ish Billion), but it does need to be backed up by an ability to employ a strong military. As Kiwirob said, NZ is a power because of its neighbours and not because of NZs actual power (SP grass skirts and mud huts). Start spending several billion (net - after CC) and then we'll be able to talk about NZ as having any real sort of power. What about the inability of NZ to go it alone in tonga?

Brett.

 

[mattyem]

The tonga situation was more of a political hold back rather than an inibillity of the NZDF. It was never intended to send forces over an step in to the mess in which was casued locally in tonga.

Also you have to look at what the NZDF is already under taking elsewhere in the world.

With troops deployed with the PRT in Afghan, Troops in the solomons, Timor Leste, And small numbers in various places around the globe. Priorities for movement of troops lies else where.

Likewise when the situation was happening, the primary means of transport (hurcs, MRV) where undertaking taskings elsewhere.

Also with tonga making staunch statments about interference from the world stage, why put your countrymen into harms way when it can be easily avoided.

Let them sort it out amoungst themselves, its not like they were going to let nukes fly or lauch some icbms.