NZDF General discussion thread

[MrConservative]

Recce - thanks for your thoughtful posts. They are epic as usual in the best sense of the word.

Macchi disposal - my gut feeling is that it aint gonna happen real soon - if ever. I think there will continue to be a state of suspended disbelief over this.

The White Paper will not go anywhere near an ACF in any way shape or form. In fact if I was in government I would not mention either – I would let sleeping dogs and the sacred cows lie. However I would give it serious thought away from prying eyes for the time being. It is going to become bleedingly obvious in the later part of this decade that an air combat capability will be necessary in New Zealand. All for that very simple military – commercial nexus, Oil. Brazil in recent years discovered significant oil basins offshore and in the Amazon and the key strategic result was the FX2 programme. Norway has stayed in the fighter business due to its oil fields and if Crown Minerals are correct and they usually are pretty reliable geologist types then Oil is the big strategic daddy and an ACF will be vital by 2025. Pushing the fickle public on an ACF and a view on defence beyond nice friendly peacekeeping and disaster relief missions in the Pacific will actually be not that hard if the timing is right. I would not do anything about it now as it is not going to ‘fly’ in the midst of a recession and without the huge oil potential (20b Barrels + in Reserves according to Crown Minerals December 2009 Report) yet to be part of the public’s reality. Once oil moves into 2nd place and is getting close to Dairy as this country’s biggest export earner and is becoming part of the public’s collective consciousness and nationalist greed. That is when you raise it. The public needs tangible and simple ideas that they can grasp on to as a self evidential truth’s – We have oil – provides X Billion per Year in revenues – do we Kiwi’s protect this oil or let someone else do it?

Whatever the White Paper comes up with is in some respects going to be unspecified in this respect. In five-ten years time as a more, fuller picture emerges then whatever ‘baggage’ we have on issues such as an ACF and Frigates will happen will be diluted. Think of that Paul Buchanan quote in one of his security pieces a couple of years back “it’s not a matter if we have an air combat capability back it’s more a matter of when.” In the meantime we will just focus on getting some of the current basics right like enough light helicopters and logistical support, enough sailors for our vessels, inter-operability with a company group as part of an ANZAC deployable battalion and such like.

 

[recce.k1]

That's a nice way of describing my ramblings

I also don't expect the ACF to be reinstated either, thanks to the timing of the economic situation and the need for major investment elsewhere in the next 10 years (as Sea Toby states, the Hercs, Orions and naval support ships plus the Army fleet replacement and Frigate upgrades etc should still be on the table, plus the ever important need to recruit more grunts to keep up with the hectic depolyment tempos and the need to invest/upskill the Army to operate their new high tech investments etc).

But it is still worth highlighting that Govt has various options available if the political will was to be found. For example a SH type flight would have been out of the question prior to 2001 when those hundreds of ACF support positions existed. But nowadays, with those trades gutted, from a budgetary perspective, it would only require a "fraction" (perhaps 1/5th or less?) of those positions to be refilled. Another case of win-win as far as the Treasury are concerned, perhaps. Ok that's enough talk of SH's from me, you all will be pleased to hear, (except that heh heh, I fancy the idea of F15 Strike Eagles more for land/sea interdiction, ok, I know that concept is not compatible with the RAAF's SH's ...... not unless we decided to team up with the Singaporians instead Hey, maybe they could eventually base their US based F15 Sqn here along with our flight? After all NZ is closer to their home than the US, and enroute to defending their Island nation from an "attack" they would overfly allied Australia, rather than some north Pacific route which potentially could see their adversary's waiting to block them)?

On a serious note the DefMin says today:

The defence dollar to be stretched to protect New Zealand's interests
By WAYNE MAPP
Last updated 08:06 12/03/2010
The defence dollar to be stretched to protect New... | Stuff.co.nz

OPINION: Last year, the Government started work on the first major defence review in more than a decade. The main challenge is how best to defend New Zealand and our interests in the next 20 years.

We spend $2.1 billion a year on defence, so we need to make it count. The review must describe New Zealand's strategic interests, the right set of defence capabilities to meet them and how they are to be paid for. It will also have to reliably inform our defence partners how we view these matters.

A huge amount of work has been done over the past 11 months. The core concerns have been fully canvassed, gaps identified and problems found.

Looking at the strategic context, New Zealand's key defence responsibility is the South Pacific, out to Timor-Leste. Together with Australia, we have to be able to cover every reasonably foreseeable contingency, whether it be bringing stability to troubled countries, disaster relief, search and rescue or protecting our ocean resources.

Beyond our region we have choices. However, in the Asia- Pacific area, we should expect to be a reliable security partner. This is where our economic future lies. We need to contribute to the overall security of the region.

New Zealand has always taken an internationalist approach. That is why we are in Afghanistan. Terrorism with its roots in Afghanistan has killed New Zealanders. In partnership with 40 other countries, we are working to build a more stable Afghanistan so that it can be a responsible member of the international community, not a haven for terrorism.

All this means we need a deployable defence force that has the naval and air force capabilities to patrol and secure our region.

At present, there are some gaps in our capabilities. For example, we rely on sophisticated Orion aircraft to conduct the full range of maritime surveillance and search and rescue.

They are ideal aircraft for long range missions into the Pacific and beyond. However, they are more sophisticated than necessary for patrolling our own exclusive economic zone.

An option to cover this gap would be to have shorter-range, less advanced aircraft to cover the lower- level tasks. This would let us do more of these tasks for ourselves and help our South Pacific neighbours by basing these aircraft in the islands from time to time. The review will consider this option.

* * *

One immediate problem we face is that defence spending will be tight in the next five years. This is due to two factors. The first is the introduction of $2 billion of new or dramatically improved capabilities: new helicopters, new ships and upgraded Orion and Hercules aircraft.

All these generate additional depreciation and operating costs. This money has to be found.

The second is the impact of the recession on government spending, which means only small increases in defence spending over the next few years. The Government has been determined to get more value for money. In defence, this means shifting expenditure from the back office to the front line.

With 38 per cent of the $2.1b annual expenditure being spent on personnel, we need to ensure more of that money is spent on service people who are able to be deployed on operations, whether peacekeeping, disaster relief or conventional missions.

Operating costs will also need to be carefully scrutinised. This means looking beyond the vital immediate costs such as fuel, ammunition and maintenance. We can look for efficiencies in how we manage our bases and replace infrastructure such as hangars and housing. We can also look at functions such as human resources, logistics support and training to ensure that we get the best value for the three services.

In the next six months, the Government will conduct a Value for Money project to find savings of about $50 million a year. This will close the funding gap and ensure that defence is sustainable over time.

If we can meet the short-term financial challenge, the higher level of depreciation will go a long way to funding the replacement of the core capabilities in the Defence Force. It will also allow some new capabilities to bridge the gaps that the review has identified.

The review is a major task. It is too important to be rushed. The public in New Zealand and in many other countries will scrutinise our review to see whether it is responsible, robust and sustainable.

All of this work will be brought together in a White Paper this year. This will set our course for the next two decades.

Wayne Mapp is the Defence Minister.

Again the Defmin gives very little away but good to see the short-medium range patrol aircraft concept is back on the table again, and also the idea of basing them in the Pacific periodically, to free up the Orions for their long range taskings.

I just hope the Govt doesn't do something crazy and cut the Orions fleet as a result. So what would be some good reasons to counter any possibility of the Govt reducing Orions or their crews? How about the fact that deployments to areas such as the Middle East (as in 2003 approx from memory) I think saw 2 aircraft deployed, which to me would be the minimum required to ensure reliable taskings (3 would be better eh). So if 2 away, maybe at home 2 are in maintenance, that leaves 2 aircraft (of out a fleet of 6) meaning that we would have the required 1 available for 24hr SAR/long range survellience taskings and a second for backup or indeed backup for the overseas deployment should for example one of the deployed aircraft have a major engineering fault etc. In other words the Govt needs to remember we're talking of crucial military assets - backup/spare aircraft would be required - one can't go and pick up spares from the corner dairy.

Another reason ensure the 6 Orions are retained is to maximise the investment needed to train skilled personnel to operate and maintain the type. With only 6 aircraft (which is a small number compared to other Orion operators) presumably there must be 6 (or 5?) complete aircrews, reduce their numbers and should key personnel be unavailable (sick/killed/whatever) this could leave the Sqn in a precarious state? Plus I hope the Govt hasn't forgotten the times prior (90's) when most of the Orion "captains" resigned? Similarly I vaguely recall other critical manning shortages in the 80's, no?

Now in the absence of a viable ACF, these Orions, hopefully finally get their long talked about stand off missiles (better bl**dy not be the ex-ACF Mavericks!), these are NZ's only serious maritime "defenders", these aircraft are too critical to be downsized!

Let's hope the RNZAF gets this two tier maritime patrol model (and hopefully a third UAV tier at some point within these next 10 years) - that of short/medium patrol using ??? aircraft in the more benign Pacific and the longer range P3's in the wider sphere that NZ contributes to.

(After all the previous Govt more or less got this 2 or 3 tier approach right for the Navy - IPV's for inshore, OPV's for Pacific/Southern duties and Frigates for further afield where the hotspots are. RNZAF lucked out in many ways but this is a good fix).

Any thoughts on what the ???? aircraft will be? With this scuttlebut on LM & contracted support (plus they've already secured a huge logistics support deal) I wonder if rather than Q300 types, we could see C27's? If so, maybe with some sort of modular fitout (to allow pax/cargo taskings also)???

 

[Twickiwi]

That's a nice way of describing my ramblings

Let's hope the RNZAF gets this two tier maritime patrol model (and hopefully a third UAV tier at some point within these next 10 years) - that of short/medium patrol using ??? aircraft in the more benign Pacific and the longer range P3's in the wider sphere that NZ contributes to.

Any thoughts on what the ???? aircraft will be? With this scuttlebut on LM & contracted support (plus they've already secured a huge logistics support deal) I wonder if rather than Q300 types, we could see C27's? If so, maybe with some sort of modular fitout (to allow pax/cargo taskings also)???

What about the OV-10X announced at the Singapore airshow? It would seem to fill a niche different from the C-27, but earlier models were used extensively by the USN for sea patrol and coastal CAS. I like the idea of modular C-27Js to take the heat off the C-130Hs in terms of logistical dog work, but isn't the EEZ patrol requirement a fairly all consuming tasking? If we are going down the muliple engined route what about the C-295 fitted out for maritime patrol. A specialist for a particular role, but would it be any cheaper than the Orion it replaces?

 

[recce.k1]

That OV-10X sure looks like a stealthy way to reintroduce CAS capabilities for the Army!

Could be a handy asset if the pollies could ever be convinced (and similarly the RNZAF convinced to operate such a type) Getting them deployed (overseas) could be a big problem though, they appear to only have a 500m range?

It appears a C-295 may be around NZ $40-50M ea by my reckoning (fully kitted out)?

 

[moahunter]

^UAV's are the future of CAS, in fact, they are now the "now". I don't see how this manned plane (OV-10x) would have any point at all, other than to waste money training pilots, when NZ should be training software engineers and similar, for UAV's.

 

[StevoJH]

Guys, just remember that there is always going to be the white paper released for public consumption and then the real document which would be highly classified. No idea how much they would differ though, whether it was only in the level of detail or if stuff is actually excluded for the public release.

 

[recce.k1]

Don't worry, although I like the OV-10X (and other similar prop aircraft or helo options for CAS, rather than fast jets which in a hypothetical NZ context should be geared more towards long range maritime and land interdiction IM(humble)O ), I'm not at all advocating NZ buy them!

For NZ CAS the NZDF would indeed be better off looking at UAV technology - I agree. It would be a better way to get some teeth back....

(The problem then becomes who owns them - Air Force or Army ). IMO for a small country like NZ, the Air Force has the support expertise and culture ...

 

[Todjaeger]

It appears a C-295 may be around NZ $40-50M ea by my reckoning (fully kitted out)?

It might depend somewhat on the fitout. If NZ is looking for a good MPA for SAR/EEZ Patrolling, something like the HC-144A Ocean Sentry might do quite well. It is the USCG verion of the EADS-CASA CN-245 MPA. The aircraft cost I believe is ~US$30 million each and has a number of fixed comm and sensor systems (radar, EO/IR, etc.) However, there is a Mission System Pallet (MSP) which was developed by LockMart as a set of removable C4ISR stations. I believe the cost per MSP is ~US$12 million

Something like the MSP would allow the to be re-roled depending on service needs. It could also allow a smaller number of aircraft to deliver an Nth-degree of service at potentially lower cost, since the various MSP could be swapped between aircraft as needed. This way, aircraft in for airframe and engine maintenance are not also occupying sensitive electronics and similarly if electronic components need replacement/repair, the aircraft themselves can be used for other missions.

The only possible downside is that AFAIK the HC-144A, being a USCG patrol aircraft is strictly for patrolling and is not armed for ASW or ASuW. OTOH if the aircraft is primarily expected to operate within the NZ EEZ and/or Pacific Forum countries where the NZDFcurrently does patrolling with the P-3K Orion, this might not be an issue.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

It might depend somewhat on the fitout. If NZ is looking for a good MPA for SAR/EEZ Patrolling, something like the HC-144A Ocean Sentry might do quite well. It is the USCG verion of the EADS-CASA CN-245 MPA. The aircraft cost I believe is ~US$30 million each and has a number of fixed comm and sensor systems (radar, EO/IR, etc.) However, there is a Mission System Pallet (MSP) which was developed by LockMart as a set of removable C4ISR stations. I believe the cost per MSP is ~US$12 million

Something like the MSP would allow the to be re-roled depending on service needs. It could also allow a smaller number of aircraft to deliver an Nth-degree of service at potentially lower cost, since the various MSP could be swapped between aircraft as needed. This way, aircraft in for airframe and engine maintenance are not also occupying sensitive electronics and similarly if electronic components need replacement/repair, the aircraft themselves can be used for other missions.

The only possible downside is that AFAIK the HC-144A, being a USCG patrol aircraft is strictly for patrolling and is not armed for ASW or ASuW. OTOH if the aircraft is primarily expected to operate within the NZ EEZ and/or Pacific Forum countries where the NZDFcurrently does patrolling with the P-3K Orion, this might not be an issue.

-Cheers

This MPS system is just a perfect solution for an, over-tasked cash strapped RNZAF. The beauty in this type of system is that the NZDF can buy the planes and the other heavy users of the MPS namely Police, Customs, Immigration, and MinFish can each put in the cash to buy a couple of pallets.

Todjaeger isn’t there a couple of other manufacturers going down this MPS or modular line. Bombardier had a Multi-Mission mock-up at one stage a couple of years back though certainly not as sophisticated in terms of C4SIR as this and were not Raytheon trying to come up with something for the B350ER’s that was modulised?

 

[Todjaeger]

This MPS system is just a perfect solution for an, over-tasked cash strapped RNZAF. The beauty in this type of system is that the NZDF can buy the planes and the other heavy users of the MPS namely Police, Customs, Immigration, and MinFish can each put in the cash to buy a couple of pallets.

Todjaeger isn’t there a couple of other manufacturers going down this MPS or modular line. Bombardier had a Multi-Mission mock-up at one stage a couple of years back though certainly not as sophisticated in terms of C4SIR as this and were not Raytheon trying to come up with something for the B350ER’s that was modulised?

From what I recall, there are a few companies putting together various modular systems. The Lockheed Martin MPS was the first one I have seen images of that made sense... A hangup I had previously had about such an arrangement stemmed from not understanding (on my part) the radar/sensor and comm arrangements.

If memory serves packages have been created by Lockheed Martin (MPS), EADS, BAE Systems, Raytheon and L-3 and Northrupp Grumman as well I think. I am certain that Bombardier has modular offerings, but they are largely an aircraft manufacturing concern, so I believe they had one of the other players do the avionics integration while they would provide the green airframes.

The EADS MPA modular systems as I recall were also designed to be scalable so that small airplanes with 1-4 pilots and crew could operate as maritime patrol, up to larger aircraft like the ATR 42.

However, given that most of the aircraft offerings seem to lack cargo doors and/or a rear loading ramp, I do not know just how modular/palletized the other offerings really are. I suspect that for Kiwi purposes, the best airframes to choose from for such role capacities would be the CN-235, the CN-295, C-27J Spartan, or if one wishes to really think out of the box, the CH-47 Chinook.

I will see if I can relocate the naval magazine which covered some of the various smaller MPA offerings to see who the players were and what they had on offer.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

As always, thanks Todjaeger (and Mr C) for the insights on the "scene". As StevoJH says, we'll just have to wait until the Whitepaper is released to see to what extent the Govt here will commit to any of this. I assume these types would be under consideration (and for Pacific patrolling the fact they are unarmed shouldn't be a issue) and they give added flexibility for small cargo/pax runs when a C130 is an overkill, so here's hoping. Everything sugested above seems reasonable IMO (in a NZ Govt context).

It will be interesting to see where UAV's fit into the mix and when (at what stage in the future). NZ's problem it seems, is to do things multi-role seeing it is such a small defence force. One may think that NZ should ditch the Medium range MPA aircraft idea (as above) in favour of pure UAV's (with the P3's in the interim) but I suspect the Govt, like any NZ Govt, simply wants more bang for buck and at least by using manned medium range patrol aircraft they can undertake other roles that UAV's can't eg civilian stuff like carrying cargo to disaster areas and medivac etc. Very, very important for NZ's relationship (and perceptions) with its pacific neighbours, way more above simply stationing say an armed UAV there (I doubt any pacific govt would be impressed with an armed/UAV over a multi-role manned aircraft - they'd see it as unnecessary when they know there are other more important basic needs etc).

As for pricing looks like for around NZ $150M perhaps we could buy 3-4 aircraft depending on fit out (or lesser fitout = even cheaper)?

Another thing the defmin above did mention that defence spending will increase over time, albiet small increases due to Govt debt etc, but at least we're not hearing spending will be reduced for a change

 

[Todjaeger]

As always, thanks Todjaeger (and Mr C) for the insights on the "scene". As StevoJH says, we'll just have to wait until the Whitepaper is released to see to what extent the Govt here will commit to any of this. I assume these types would be under consideration (and for Pacific patrolling the fact they are unarmed shouldn't be a issue) and they give added flexibility for small cargo/pax runs when a C130 is an overkill, so here's hoping. Everything sugested above seems reasonable IMO (in a NZ Govt context).

It will be interesting to see where UAV's fit into the mix and when (at what stage in the future). NZ's problem it seems, is to do things multi-role seeing it is such a small defence force. One may think that NZ should ditch the Medium range MPA aircraft idea (as above) in favour of pure UAV's (with the P3's in the interim) but I suspect the Govt, like any NZ Govt, simply wants more bang for buck and at least by using manned medium range patrol aircraft they can undertake other roles that UAV's can't eg civilian stuff like carrying cargo to disaster areas and medivac etc. Very, very important for NZ's relationship (and perceptions) with its pacific neighbours, way more above simply stationing say an armed UAV there (I doubt any pacific govt would be impressed with an armed/UAV over a multi-role manned aircraft - they'd see it as unnecessary when they know there are other more important basic needs etc).

As for pricing looks like for around NZ $150M perhaps we could buy 3-4 aircraft depending on fit out (or lesser fitout = even cheaper)?

Another thing the defmin above did mention that defence spending will increase over time, albiet small increases due to Govt debt etc, but at least we're not hearing spending will be reduced for a change

At current exchange rates, and if my figures on per unit costs are correct, NZ$150 million would get three HC-144A configured aircraft, and one MSP. IMO that would be a good start, but I feel there should be at least two MSP per three aircraft, and that three medium MPA would be insufficient. Remember, the NZDF is currently conducting aerial patrols of NZ's EEZ, as well as the EEZ of several Pacific island nations associated with NZ.

While some might argue that the six Orions have been sufficient so far, my feeling is that either no one has bothered to do illegal fishing in NZ waters in any significant scale, or that they have just never been caught at it. I can only imagine the situation getting worse if there is exploitable fossil fuels found offshore. Between the increased maritime traffic from tankers, supply vessels, any protesters, as well as those who would be engaged in illegal activities.

Incidentally, it would be quite interesting to know what is the reason for the ~six month delay in the release of the White Paper. A number of different possible reasons come to mind, some good, others not so much. Whatever it is/they are, it would seem that something has changed the NZ defence situation.

-Cheers

 

[Gibbo]

.....Incidentally, it would be quite interesting to know what is the reason for the ~six month delay in the release of the White Paper. A number of different possible reasons come to mind, some good, others not so much. Whatever it is/they are, it would seem that something has changed the NZ defence situation.

-Cheers

Something has changed the NZ defence situation - a recession!

Given it was only a few weeks out from being published it would have been drafted so I dare say that the draft had been reviewed by others in Govt & it's been thrown back with a comment along the lines off - 'try a little harder - shave $50M off & we'll go with it'.

This could however be interpreted as suggesting it will propose a definite change in direction (policy and/or equipment) - but guess we'll have to wait. For 'smaller & less sophisticated MPA we could be talking B200/B350 with human observers' - I don't think we'll see an mid-sized MPA as such, more likely it'll be a fairly basic platform. :hitwall

 

[Todjaeger]

Something has changed the NZ defence situation - a recession!

Given it was only a few weeks out from being published it would have been drafted so I dare say that the draft had been reviewed by others in Govt & it's been thrown back with a comment along the lines off - 'try a little harder - shave $50M off & we'll go with it'.

This could however be interpreted as suggesting it will propose a definite change in direction (policy and/or equipment) - but guess we'll have to wait. For 'smaller & less sophisticated MPA we could be talking B200/B350 with human observers' - I don't think we'll see an mid-sized MPA as such, more likely it'll be a fairly basic platform. :hitwall

I certainly expect the recession to have an impact. What I am less certain though if that is the source of the delay...

I do expect that the delay is due to some sort of revision to the White Paper, but as I understand it, a White Paper is supposed to be a policy planning paper outlining mid/long-term defence policies. Not quite to the extent of a Quadrennial review, but along similar lines. It also it not necessarily quite as equipment specific as a LTDP, but it does help to lay the groundwork for a LTDP.

As such, since the impact of the White Paper could last for a decade or more, with "NZ$2 billion yearly" spent on defence, I do not imagine a request to chop NZ$50 million would have much relevance. If it was just the 2010 or 2011 fiscal year budget for the NZDF, the NZ$50 million could be significant, but that amount weighed against NZ$20+ billion amounts to less that 1% of the allocation.

Now, if the impact of the recession is expected to be felt by NZ for much of the next decade, and/or cause a corresponding impact on the NZDF budget, to a greater degree than already anticipated, the delay would be understandable. What I suspect though, is that there was a confluence of requests, future demands and potential occurences which triggered the delay.

In terms of just equipment, there are a number of pieces of equipment, significant pieces, which will need to be replaced over the next decade. Planning for their respective replacements needs to be needs started pretty much immediately if it is not already underway.

Consider, for instance, the RNZN. By the end of this decade, the fleet will have been in essence completely renewed. The Project Protector vessels are just starting to really enter and see service, and the fleet oiler and dive vessels need replacement, and the frigates are due for replacement at the end of the decade.

On the RNZAF side of things, the naval helicopters will have been up for replacement, as will the P-3K Orions. IMO the C-130H Hercules are past due for replacement, and this seems to unfortunately be born out by the SLEP cost to get an additional five years of service, which is almost the cost to purchase new airlifters. It is also quite possible that the B757s will be reaching the point of replacement at the end of the decade as well.

Army itself also does appear to need a look into the cupboards equipment-wise. In hindsight, the NZLAV does not appear to be particularly suitable for NZ service, at least in the quantities it was purchased in. The weight and wheel arrangement makes it difficult to transport or operate in unimproved areas, while the armour is insufficient for the potential threats it would face in areas where use of the 25 mm cannon would be appropriate.

I could go on, but I believe most people posting in this thread already have some familiarity with what I mean.

What I would like to know, is if Government, on conducting research for the White Paper realised the sheer amount of resources required to essentially renew the NZDF and began to baulk at the pricetag? Or is something else going on, like a capability gap was unexpectedly recognized.

Again, yes, the recession will have an impact on the NZDF, especially in what can be purchased this year and perhaps for the next few years. The White Paper however, should be discussing what the NZDF needs to do and perhaps should be able to do over the next decade or more, along with some ideas on how to achieve that. The recession should not have an impact upon that, apart from perhaps some of the solutions suggested.

-Cheers

 

[Norm]

Defence White paper delay

" I certainly expect the recession to have an impact. What I am less certain though if that is the source of the delay...

..What I suspect though, is that there was a confluence of requests, future demands and potential occurences which triggered the delay."

Todjaeger I think your on the money[excuse the pun],what i've heard was that when everything was factored in the $2.1b Defence operating vote needed to increase by $1billion odd , so it was back to the drawing board.

 

[recce.k1]

NZ has come out of the recession (eg thanks to increasing export growth to Asia/China etc), but the Govt is still running deficts, although there was some good news a few days ago about NZ's terms of trade being in the positive. The issue seems (to me) to be that the Govt, which is still borrowing is (rightly) saying "we're not out of it yet" and thus Govt depts need to tighten expediture. I don't have an issue with efficiencies as such (although it is hard working under such circumstances) but I think it puts areas like defence in a corner somewhat.

If Norm has heard right (I don't at all doubt it), if indeed Defence needs an approx 50% increase in its operating budget (although I would like that) in these economic circumstances it just won't be possible (hence as Norm says, its back to the drawing board).

Having said that, the Govt needs to be realistic in that Defence on its current operating budget of $2B (and I assume that capital expenditure is additional to this $2B operating budget from my understanding - and capex distorts the budget picture for in some years overall defence spending will appear higher than other years, depending what is bought or more correctly being paid for that year etc) clearly isn't sustainable without further cutbacks. Hence the $50M efficiency drive and the new operating costs associated with introducing new types of (much more capable) equipment into service which are additional and need to be factored in. So that's what I mean (assuming I am correct) in that current expenditure isn't sustainable, it does actually need to increase to cater for these new challenges. And maybe it will and hence the reason for the delay whilst other new potential capabilities are being scrutinised to ensure the full costs are known.

So there may be very little in terms of new capabiities within say perhaps the next 5 years, although there is obviously the need to replace 2 naval support ships in this time, the Army truck fleet modernisation (this will be interesting, I understand that from the Coalition lessons learnt in Iraq/Afghanisatan & the IED threat, the Army naturally wanted trucks with protected cabs etc, so let's see whether this does happen or they get cheaper less protected trucks etc), further upgrades to the ANZAC frigates and Orions etc. Hey but what I do I know? I don't so hopefully there will be other good news in due course.

Looking toward the end of the 2010's should see the need to replace the C130H's (if not sooner by the way the SLEP is going) so there's a potential $800M-$1B there. Possibly towards the end of the 2010's will also be the P-3 replacement (possibly potentially another $800M-$1B) what ever that may be. The ANZAC Frigates weren't supposed to be replaced until the mid 2020's so that is way off at this point in time. I personally don't see any of this needing to be an issue really, I say that because from say approx 2000-2008 Labour committed $3B for capex and $4.7B for sustainability initiatives -nearly $8B over some 8-10 years on top of the approx $2B annual operating budget. I really can't see an issue in the second-half of the 2010's whereby NZ does buy a new fleet of C130J's or A400's or a few P-8's and maritime UAV's, along with other less sexy items such as trucks (around $500M?), afew more A109's and support vessels. Oh I didn't mention the Seasprite mid-life upgrade - upgrade or replace, I suppose that could be another $500M depending what is chosen etc.

The only difference between then and now is back then the Govt had surpluses to afford the above and now the Govt has deficits to contend with, but these won't be a permanent fixture of the NZ economy, but of course they cloud the issue. The challenge to this new Govt is to set the direction (and funding) for the NZDF some 25 years out, as said before no easy task etc, to make it less likely to be tinkered with everytime there is a change of govt and back again.

 

[Gibbo]

Reason for delay in defence review

A 'value for money' exercise!?!

By a 'hatchet man' with no defence experience whatsoever!!?! nfloorl:

Beehive - Deane to lead Defence Value For Money review

Roderick Deane: Architect and demolisher | Stuff.co.nz

What on earth does all this equate to?...:dunce

 

[MrConservative]

A 'value for money' exercise!?!

By a 'hatchet man' with no defence experience whatsoever!!?! nfloorl:

Beehive - Deane to lead Defence Value For Money review

Roderick Deane: Architect and demolisher | Stuff.co.nz

What on earth does all this equate to?...:dunce

Relax Gibbo - it wont as bad as you fear. In fact this is actually needed as the financial culture is poor in both the NZDF and MinDef.

Dean has no Defence experience but he does have considerable Financial experience which is one thing more than most of the clowns at one of our worst performing Govt entities. If there had been in place an evaluatory process built into the measurement of output classes and measured robustly against procurement and capital requirements, like in any properly run large organisation, we would not have had the AG investigating after every purchase contract and the wasted tens of millions. Thus, I’m OK with Rod Deane doing this as Defence at both the Ministry level and within the NZDF really needs to remove a lot of deadwood. Value for money really needs to be done – however it is one of a number of things which need to changed in the “culture” Min of Def and the “advocacy” of the NZDF.

I have friends who have worked for RD (prior to the Telecom days) including a friend who worked under him during July of 1984 and the role he had basically help save a NZ fiscal meltdown (that was just weeks away from the IMF being called into run the economy which as the Greeks and others have found out makes Rogernomic’s look like Santa Claus). There are very few people who can do the task RD has been given within the timeframe. This has more to do with systems and financial management then anything to do with operational Defence matters. There is no one in Defence who can do this – events over recent years are evidence enough. Deane is not doing a Quigley from what I understand.

 

[Lucasnz]

In between my wanderings; some thoughts on the recent discussions

Relax Gibbo - it wont as bad as you fear. In fact this is actually needed as the financial culture is poor in both the NZDF and MinDef.

Dean has no Defence experience but he does have considerable Financial experience which is one thing more than most of the clowns at one of our worst performing Govt entities... Thus, I’m OK with Rod Deane doing this as Defence at both the Ministry level and within the NZDF really needs to remove a lot of deadwood. Value for money really needs to be done – however it is one of a number of things which need to changed in the “culture” Min of Def and the “advocacy” of the NZDF.

Yes the fiscal thinking in Defence does need reform, so in that respects I have no issues with Mr Deane's role.

Todjaeger I think your on the money[excuse the pun],what i've heard was that when everything was factored in the $2.1b Defence operating vote needed to increase by $1billion odd , so it was back to the drawing board.

A one billion dollar increase would denote either the reinstatement of the aircombat force or a signficiant expansion in other areas.

I'll dance in the street while eating my hat if defence got that sort of increase, even over ten years. Naturally I'd be doing all this while watching the Greens choke on their veggie burgers.

It does however make Mr Deanes review even more critical, given the problems we've run into with the C-130 program, the overspend on the helicopters etc. We can't keep running projects the way we have been. I think we've forgotten the benefits from buying off the shelf from long production runs vs the lets do it on the cheap ad hoc designs and upgrades we've been getting, not to mention some over priced contracts. I still get the feeling that the only ones laughing (all the way to the bank) in the NH90 deal were Eurocopter and their mates.

The UK Green paper stated that the international average in regards to Capital expenditure amounted 33% of the defence expenditure. That would add an average $333 million on top of the existing bugdet depending on how the money was allocated. That effectively two new frigates every three - four years.

 

[Twickiwi]

Yes the fiscal thinking in Defence does need reform, so in that respects I have no issues with Mr Deane's role.

From both public and private sector contacts I have heard that Rod Deane (or God as they called him) was an exceptional manager, leader and strategist. What interests me in this appointment is not Rod Deane's past or politics. This guy is not a place holder or a crony. A performer like this would not have been put into the role without a clear (and probably radical) plan and full mandate to implement the plan. More importantly he wouldn't have taken the role without either.

When you compare that with the caginess and vagueness of the National Government's statements on defence I get the distinct impression that I'm being left out of the loop. Delaying the publication of the White Paper and then anouncing this appointment are not compatible with steady as she goes management. Something might be about to happen here. Something dramatic.