NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

Well Paul Buchanan, being a forum member, would be in a position to explain his writings, to us here, OPSSG.

After reading the links I suggest, as Cadredave points out, we need to wait until Defence can confirm whether the attack was criminal or insurgent etc, before drawing any conclusions.

And as Paul isn't in NZ he would have missed (NZ) reports not long after the incident saying the patrol was a mix of uparmoured Hilux's and Humvees.

Perhaps as Singapore has a presence with the NZPRT you may be concerned about the situation?

The local ethnic group were discriminated against by the Taliban pre-9/11 so generally speaking they won't be sympathetic to the current Taliban, which is in (all of) our favour. Presumably the Hazaras would have a lot to lose if the Taliban came back (eg schools, female governer etc) so I wouldn't expect them to begin to look the other way at all - it's not like ISAF forces have left Bamiyan (and won't for a number of years). I know what Paul means though, he means (presumably) if there weren't ISAF forces there then as a matter of survival it is natural for the locals (any locals) to cooperate with the Taliban or be killed, but at this point in time it is an unnecessary comment which will confuse the public of NZ, the uninformed and suit the peaceniks etc.

For example (I'm not going to bother posting links) there's many a journo or peacnik that, to suit their agenda, generalise on the situation eg last week the President of Pakistan says the situation in Afghanistan is hopeless and the west is losing the battle. So these journos etc crow about his remarks. I say, firstly, never trust what a politician says, and secondly, bollocks to these generalisations, as an example the people of Bamiyan support western forces there. They simply want peace, stability, economic development (they were a former tourist destination), education etc.

OPSSG, I agree with your comments about corruption and third world countries, as you say of course it takes time to build up good governance etc. It was said all along from day dot (post 9/11) that Afghanistan will take years and years to mature and become stable. As you say it has taken many years for ASEAN nations to grown and develop - and look how successful the majority of them are now! Which is what really, really makes me angry about the NZ Labour Party's flip-flop on Afghanistan. They say the Afghan Govt is corrupt thus NZ should pull out. I say if the Afghan Govt (again a generalisation) is corrupt, well then they were just as corrupt then when Labour sent the NZDF in in the first place - i.e. what's the difference between then and now? None IMO. Which then means the debate in NZ has become politicised, meaning the usual half-wit turkeys can float their (anti-west) agenda and befuddle the general public. Pathetic. I do agree with Paul that the Govt needs to better articulate the reasons why NZ is in Afghanistan (in this era of non-political consensus) and I agree the Govt needs to lift its game, Defmin Wayne Mapp seems a genuine nice guy but he seems loathe to be bothered explaining the situation properly when offered the opportunity.

http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/interview-defence-minister-wayne-mapp-3688130
(That's the transcript but see the video for the Defmin's body language)!

Anyway the comments from the Govt appear to be, as the PRT hands more over to civilian operations, NZDF personnel will still be there in the long run (probably until 2014 or whenever ISAF scale back etc) to conduct security and patrols etc. That's good for all concerned.

 

[OPSSG]

And as Paul isn't in NZ he would have missed (NZ) reports not long after the incident saying the patrol was a mix of uparmoured Hilux's and Humvees.

I have previously posted video footage of Singaporeans are driving around in uparmoured Ford Everests in Bamiyan, in another thread (see link to a blog post on the induction of the Ford Everest as a utility vehicle in the SAF).

We have currently have a six-man construction engineering team to Bamiyan province as part of the NZ PRT for six months, from 2 May to 31 October 2010. The SAF will significantly increase our footprint in Afghanistan in 2010 (including the deployment of a UAV team). However, I'm not sure what's going to happen with Singaporean PRT deployments after October 2010, as we are being asked by the Americans and Australians to shift our deployment focus - this includes providing trainers to help the ANA set up their artillery school. I understand that Malaysia is going to send a 40 member team later this year and they are likely to be working with the NZ PRT (if I'm not wrong).

Perhaps as Singapore has a presence with the NZPRT you may be concerned about the situation?

Yes, we are concerned (it's mainly with regard to the sophistication of the attack). Having said that, I would add that Singaporeans like me have an implicit level of trust in NZ Defence Forces techniques, tactics and procedures (TTPs) that is hard to replicate. I also have faith in your guys on the ground.

There are actually at least two separate Singaporean deployments - in both Oruzgan and Bamiyan provinces. I understand that the threat level faced in Oruzgan is even higher. Therefore, it is not surprising to find out that the SAF has acquired a number of MaxxPro MRAP vehicles and they will be deployed in Afghanistan later this year. These vehicles were unveiled at our recent national day parade held on 9 August 2010 (see relevant DT picture thread here). However, it is important to note that the MaxxPros are not acquired for the sole purpose of use in Afghanistan - they are acquired because of a change in our concept of operations, which includes amongst other things improving our ability to fight in urban areas.

...but at this point in time it is an unnecessary comment which will confuse the public of NZ, the uninformed and suit the peaceniks etc.

Yes, this comment has the potential to muddy the waters.

...I say, firstly, never trust what a politician says, and secondly, bollocks to these generalisations, as an example the people of Bamiyan support western forces there. They simply want peace, stability, economic development (they were a former tourist destination), education etc.

Yes.

OPSSG, I agree with your comments about corruption and third world countries, as you say of course it takes time to build up good governance etc. It was said all along from day dot (post 9/11) that Afghanistan will take years and years to mature and become stable. As you say it has taken many years for ASEAN nations to grown and develop - and look how successful the majority of them are now!

Third World countries are places where progress is measured by 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. As long as there is net progress, it will have to do.

http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/interview-defence-minister-wayne-mapp-3688130
(That's the transcript but see the video for the Defmin's body language)!.

This deadly insurgent attack can be likened to throwing a stone into the proverbial muddy Afghan pond in Bamiyan. The media interview with Dr Wayne Mapp, is conducted in a manner that can be likened to throwing more stones in the muddy pond in the hope for more clarity. The interviewer is fundamentally clueless on TTPs and is trying to over-simplify the debate to the level of meaninglessness.

Of course more armour protection and v-shaped hulls in vehicles is better against IEDs but the heavier it is, the less mobile and the greater the roll-over risk (and I've seen British blogs make the same arguments for more MRAPs). See video on MRAP Rollover Training:
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3GG_1-crN8&feature=channel[/nomedia].

If you use overly heavy vehicles unsuited for the local terrain, you may get killed from an accident even before an insurgent attack. IMO, the correct solution is possibly a mix of vehicles and better intelligence (which means going out and talking to the locals) - the answer cannot be more vehicular armour alone.

If you reduce mobility, you reduce access and areas of patrol. That increases the risk of insurgent attacks in 'safe areas', so there is always a need to conduct patrols at the margins - conceptually, the more patrols, the merrier (subject to logistics and manpower limitations). In fact, a common request from the troops in the field is more troops in their AO. The issue is that the PRTs do not conduct fighting patrols, they conduct presence patrols and they are essentially armed out-reach. If you are in the business of armed-out reach, how heavily armoured can you be (before it turns-off the locals)? There is always an element of danger and more protection via more vehicular armour alone is not the sole answer to a complex issue.

Reductionist arguments to complex problems are attractive but are misleading and likely to be inappropriate to local conditions. I have a relative (who recently passed away) that participated in numerous UN peacekeeping missions over the years. In fact, his vehicle even flipped over before, while on patrol for the UN mission. In our past family gatherings, he often told stories and explained how complex the local situation can be. The solution may not be obvious until you acquire the appropriate local knowledge - which means cultural awareness (and you can't just impose a western paradigm on alien cultures). And that is hard to communicate cultural awareness of local conditions in sound bites.

 

[RegR]

OPSSG I don't think anyone here is saying if we get bigger armoured vehicles like the bushmaster then all our problems in Afghan will be solved over night, people could still die in attacks on these however will be minimised, it is merely a possible improvement to what we operate with, TTPs and patrols would continue as per with only minor changes due to vehicle set ups, handling etc. Im pretty sure a bushmaster will go anywhere we are taking the uparmoured Humvees despite the extra weight (remember the armoured hummvee is a big wide heavy beast itself). Our patrols are being attacked on the move not while they are stuck or rolling down hills, although your concerns of the added weight are valid i'm sure a driver with the appropriate training will know the limits of his/her vehicle.
Lets just get off the bushmaster then as it seems to be taking away from what is ultimately being proposed(due to its weight), the 'best' armoured vehicle does not nesscessarily mean the heaviest, although to be better than a modified hilux is more than likely going to require a weight increase. Even the humvees with their flat bottoms are not ideal however would offer more protection then the hilux , I am just saying there are alternatives out there that we should consider that would offer better protection then our current option(s).
On intelligence, Im pretty sure kiwis are getting the most out of their relationship with the locals that they can as we do not have the big dog mentality of some countries and are pretty down to earth with our approach and interaction with the local populace. We are not there to tell them how to improve their country, just giving them possible options and the means and security to acheive this. The locals would not be more inclined to give information to our patrols purely because they pulled up in a hilux rather then a bushmaster as our relationship has already been cemented over the past 8 years. They already know who the kiwis are and what they are doing and vehicle selection will not alter this. They will continue to get out of their vehicles and interact with locals remember these are just a mode of transport from A to B. The patrols can not be expected to gain every peice of intel to avoid attacks or know the enemies whereabouts otherwise we could have departed the country along time ago. There are always going to be people against our presence in their country wether we are seen as helping or not therefore we need the appropriate equipment to protect and defend ourselves.

 

[recce.k1]

This might be of interest to some, as it is related to the current discussions here.

From today's Dominion Post newspaper (not online):

NZ TROOPS TEST AFGHANISTAN TECHNIQUES IN ARIZONA

New Zealand is taking part in a major military exercise with American, Australian, British and other allied forces.

The exercise is under way in Arizona to test intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technology before it is used against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

No details were available yesterday in how many NZ personnel are involved. Defence spokesman Phil Bradshaw said he believed numbers were fairly minimal.

The Empire Challenge, held at the Fort Huachuca US Army installation in southeast Arizona near the Mexican border, replicates situations and missions faced by allied forces in Afghanistan, including roadside bomb attacks and the identification and tracking of “high value individuals”.

The scenarios test the flow of intelligence information between different segments of the US military, as well as from ally to ally, to prevent hiccups in Afghanistan.

The Australian military has representatives at Fort Huachuca and at installations back in Australia receiving and monitoring data and surveillance footage from the live exercises.

Empire Challenge, held over 13 days, is an annual exercise and proved valuable to the British military last year when extreme hot temperatures at the US Naval Air Weapons Station, in California’s Mojave Desert, “literally melted” their equipment. High winds also caused problems.

“So they made fixes to that system based on what they learned at Empire Challenge and then that deployed to Afghanistan,” Empire Challenge project manager John Kittle said.
-AAP

Somewhat related, the UK Govt's junior foreign minister Lord David Howell was interviewed here recently on Afghanistan (and good to see the new UK Govt taking a greater interest in the Pacific and the Commonwealth etc).
West's presence in Afghanistan 'a miserable but... | Stuff.co.nz

Somewhat related again, recent news on the US-NZ-A (ANZUS!) taking the relationship further a couple of levels etc.
Better ties with NZ on US cards | Stuff.co.nz

Can't seem to locate any info at present but I thought I read recently the Malaysians were sending quite a number of their personnel to Bamiyan?

Finally several staff officers and medical staff to join ISAF planning efforts in Uruzgan.
Beehive - New Zealanders join Tarin Khowt deployment

 

[OPSSG]

@recce.k1, here's a news report you wanted:

Malaysia makes first deployment to Afghanistan

07/15/2010 -KUALA LUMPUR – Malaysia will make its first military deployment to Afghanistan Thursday, sending a unit of medical personnel as ties with the United States deepen. The Malaysian military will join New Zealand medics based in Bamiyan province, defence ministry spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Salawati Yahaya told AFP.

The deployment comes at the request of the Afghan government, and follows a warming of previously frosty ties between the United States and mainly-Muslim Malaysia. Salawati said 12 personnel will leave Thursday and the remaining 28 in the 40-member contingent will depart in September for a nine-month tour of duty. "They will provide medical and dental services to the locals," she said...

New Zealand has been responsible for the Bamiyan region since 2003...

@RegR, just a quick note to let you know I read your post and agree with your points. Thanks for the detailed response - my concern was really with the direction the media interview with Dr Wayne Mapp took - which is really about communicating to the general public in NZ.

 

[Paul G Buchanan]

correction about my stance of cutting and running.

There is irony in having a Singaporean comment on things I write while I am living in Singapore. But the record needs to be corrected. Unlike Singaporean strategic analysts, who toe the (PAP) party line on pretty much everything, I try to give objective, non-partisan analysis that covers most if not all contingencies. Thus the article quoted above by the Singaporean member is not a cut and paste sophistry to justify a NZ cut and run from ISAF. Instead, what I was trying to do was point out how it is sensible, as a defensive strategy over the long term should ISAF indeed withdraw its forces as of 2011, for Hazaras to hedge their bets and acquiesce to a restored Taliban presence in their midst. That, in turn, makes the NZDF/PRT mission in Bamiyan much harder. For another of my takes on the issue that may surprise OPSSG, see the July 24 issue of the New Zealand Listener in which I mention the Singaporean contribution and the downside of a NZDF withdrawal. In fact, in the latter essay I explicitly acuse the National government of signaling its intention to cut and run, so the ironies of OPSSG' remarks about my work are double.

As for the commentary about third world corruption: that is absolutely cringe-worthy. Besides the gross over-generalisation in making sweeping, undifferentiated statements about "third world" countries, OPSSG conveniently neglects to note that, to put it nicely, both SIngapore and the US have their own troubles with corrupt officials. It may not be as pervasive and venal as that seen in Afghanistan, but corruption unfortunately exists outside of the third world, to include "honest" states like the US , NZ and Singapore. So the condescending remarks need to be kept in check and the realities of the situation confronted in a neutral, objective, and culturally sensitive fashion. Nation-building is not about bringing the master's values to the unfortunate. It is about leveling the playing field for the locals to transcend time honoured but ultimately unfair and unequal practices that have contributed to social anomie and state failure.

I do agree that the more Muslim nations contribute to ISAF, the better it is for the mission. That Malaysia has fronted up where the Turks first dared to tread is an encouraging sign. On the other hand, it is a pity that the Chinese and Russians will not touch the ISAF effort even though their national fortunes are clearly impacted., and will continue to be impacted, by what happens in Afghanistan.

 

[recce.k1]

Paul, thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts etc.

On your first point I still don't see why ISAF would be withdrawing in 2011 to enable your further comments about the situation in Bamiyan etc? Perhaps I've missed something (or mis-read something) hence would be happy to have you expand upon this at some point etc.

Are the Hazaras passive people? Rather than (possibly) acquiesce to the Taliban would it not be better for some of them to "stand-up" and form a local ANA type unit? Or is this already happenning? (I wouldn't expect the Hazaras to welcome the Northern Alliances' warloards into their province to provide security - yes)?

What's your view on whether, in the long term, due to the tribal differences Afghanistan fragment a la Balkans? I ask because 'nation-building' (as we know it) seems a very long-term plan, which may or may not work and it appears the West is divided on staying for the long haul etc.

Here's the link to your Listener article for people to read:
Feature: Win, lose or withdraw? by Paul Buchanan | New Zealand Listener

Personally whilst I share some of your concerns (and realise you use the example of Singapore to show they are pullingtheir weight), I am not so sure I agree with your presumption that National are cutting and running. Yes, the SAS leave next year, perhaps the reason given (RWT) does seem odd but I assume that SAS can only deploy for a finite period and they need space to wind down and prepare for their next mission (RWT excluded), seeing at the end of the day they are a small force compared to other nations i.e. I don't read to much into National's decision to withdraw them. The SAS of course wish to stay to continue the job - I would support a smaller presence continuing the training, but after recent events I'd really rather they were re-deployed to shore up security on Bamiyan's fringes (and that might even get Labour/Greens support, judging by recent Keith Locke comments)?

The PRT will continue to need security hence I don't see NZDF cutting and running, just a change in emphasis, yes? All we know at this point in time, is what the Govt intends, this point in time, not what they are going to do next in terms of putting in personnel into other areas etc. National of course are damned now due to partisan politicing from Labour (unlike Australia, unlike the UK, unlike the USA and of course one party Singapore) hence your views on this would be interesting as I feel this has a major bearing on NZ's stance.

As for corruption and third world countries I assumed the comments OPSSG and I were making were generalised, certainly there is corruption anywhere including first world.

I agree it's important to have other Muslim countries there (and disappointing China/Russia, with startegic interests are sitting back for the long haul). This might sound silly but what's the implications or practicalities of Pakistan taking a more active (visible) role eg troops not ISA etc? Or would that complicate things?

 

[Paul G Buchanan]

recce.k1:

Sorry for the tardy reply. I am traveling. There is much in your note to answer, but I shall be brief.

NZ has committed to withdrawing the NZDF/PRT in Bamiyan in Sept 2011 and replacing it with civilian assistance personnel. This is laudable but the hard fact is that the security provided by the NZDF and its PRT partners is as important if not more so than the reconstruction projects they engage in. This was confirmed by a poll of Bamiyan residents conducted in April-May, where 80% had positive things to say about the security aspect but only 40 percent were positive on the reconstruction efforts. That means that the locals know which is more important to them over the long term. Since the Taliban use the "balloon" approach I mentioned in the kiwipolitico post, they will return to Bamiyan in greater numbers as the deadline for exit approaches and passes. That will not be good for the locals, even if they attempted to resist the Taliban's return.

That brings up the issue of arming and training them. This is a version of the "model village' approach first employed in the Malay campaign and then in Viet Nam, Central America and later in Iraq. Although the Malay model village strategy was a success, the experience in Viet Nam and Central America was mixed at best and a failure at worst. The same can be said for its employment in Iraq. The idea is to provide safe havens for locals and train and arm them as self-defense militias. That presumes a number of things, from unquestioned loyalty of the locals to having the ability to resist a concentrated attack for the time needed to bring reinforcements--assuming that the latter will ever arrive and be useful. In Afghanistan all of those assumptions are suspect. Thus, although the capacity for self-defense is critical to the long-term stabilisation of Bamiyan and other provinces, it is, in my opinion, a bit too early for them to go it alone (as of late 2011). The Taliban have to be pushed back further before that can happen, and even then there is the issue of provincial warlords reclaiming pride of place in the post-withdrawal aftermath.

You may be right that the NZSAS will not be fully withdrawn or at least only temporarilly. I hope so. As my writing on the subejct suggests, i believe that they are ideally suited for the so-called "bones and drones" strategy that I believe will follow the 2011 draw-down. The conflict must be taken to the Taliban, and that must happen not only in Afghanistan in places like Helmand and Kandahar, but in the NW tribal areas and Waziristans in PAK. Otherwise they will bide their time, regroup and resupply, and then return to challenge the Karzai regime on their own terms rather than as more equitable negotiated settlement (which is the only way this conflict is going to end "favourably" to the West).

I believe that you may be too optimistic about National's commitment to continuing the military side of the PRT past Sept 2011. Domestic public opinion is now more against than for the NZDF presence in Afghanistan, and all political parties are now opposed to it (Labour and the Greens have stated that publicly and the minor parties are either disinterested or going along with the National party line). Since next year is an election year (likely in November), a Sept 2011 withdrawal date conveniently takes that problem out of the voting equation. Once the election is over (and presuming that National wins), there may be a policy shift that allows for the redeployment of NZDF elements in training, advisory, and even limited combat roles, but at the moment the timetable for a NZDF withdrawal remains intact for domestic political, as opposed to military-strategic reasons.

I shall defer from continuing the discussion about corruption and the role of Muslim states, Russia and China in the conflict because I think that we all know what the score is on those issues.

Thanks for the response.

 

[MrConservative]

Paul. Good posts, good thoughts. Development, Security and Human Rights those backbone principles of the UN and para 139 of the WSO document underpining why we have been there and why we must continue to have a security focus in our presence. The RtoP theme in the article you wrote somewhere online a couple of days back was excellent. I do hope that it gets widely read as it deserved.

My view is that I don’t think the Government is cutting and running quite yet. I think the Government is doing what NZ Governments have been doing for years when it comes to issues of NatSec. Have a simpletons narrative for domestic public and media consumption and usually stuff it up communicating it. Pretty much encapsulated in the dire TV interview between Guyon and Wayno that OPSSG was alluding to. One thing is that I believe General Jerry has got the trust of the Minister and PM about what is good for the sustainability of the NZDF in all this, when married alongside the RtoP ethos of why we are there and what we can do within the limits of current resources, training tempos and personnel.

 

[Gibbo]

Spy drones request by NZ troops rejected | Otago Daily Times Online News Keep Up to Date Local, National New Zealand & International News
Troops' request for spy drones denied - National - NZ Herald News

Couple of posts on NZPRT wanting Kahu UAV's deployed but being told 'no' by HQ. We tend to think of politicians as the roadblock - but in this case MinDef seems keen on their deployment.

No doubt we'll hear 101 reasons why they can't be deployed (immature system; concerns over coalition interoperability etc) - but hell Afghanistan would be one hell of a proving ground for them. Besides they're small & relatively unobstrusive & would be used for short-range work I'd think, so why not!?!

Afghanistan is likely to be the highest risk operation NZDF will see in the immediate future so if some of this new kit isn't considered right now - when will it ever be!?!

Ok, shoot me down....:nutkick

 

[RegR]

Spy drones request by NZ troops rejected | Otago Daily Times Online News Keep Up to Date Local, National New Zealand & International News
Troops' request for spy drones denied - National - NZ Herald News

Couple of posts on NZPRT wanting Kahu UAV's deployed but being told 'no' by HQ. We tend to think of politicians as the roadblock - but in this case MinDef seems keen on their deployment.

No doubt we'll hear 101 reasons why they can't be deployed (immature system; concerns over coalition interoperability etc) - but hell Afghanistan would be one hell of a proving ground for them. Besides they're small & relatively unobstrusive & would be used for short-range work I'd think, so why not!?!

Afghanistan is likely to be the highest risk operation NZDF will see in the immediate future so if some of this new kit isn't considered right now - when will it ever be!?!

Ok, shoot me down....:nutkick

Totally agrre with you Gibbo, whats the point in having these assets if we are not going to use them operationally, maybe they are just for keeping tabs on the Waiouru tussock?

 

[mug]

Defence Review

Interesting tempters from MinDef:

$5b bill ahead for ships, aircraft
Last updated 05:00 04/10/2010
By MARTIN KAY - The Dominion Post

The Defence Force will need $5 billion for three big purchases in the next 20 years, including $2b to replace the
Anzac frigates.
Defence Minister Wayne Mapp said a White Paper to be published next month would commit the Government to
replacing the two ships when they become obsolete in 2030.
It is likely a contract to buy new ships would need to be agreed some time in the 2020s and each would cost about
$1b.
The Government would also need about $1.2b to replace the Hercules transport planes in 2020 and between $1.6b
and $2b to replace the P3 Orion aircraft in 2025 with some other long-range maritime surveillance aircraft.
Dr Mapp also revealed that a value-for-money review of the Defence Force, conducted as part of the White Paper by
former Telecom boss Rod Deane, had identified savings worth more than the $50 million a year originally asked for,
mainly by shifting jobs from uniformed to civilian staff.
He would not give the exact figure, but did not dispute suggestions that it was as high as $100m a year.
"The view was taken that the $50m was too low. Beyond that, I'm not prepared to [comment]."
The savings are on top of an expected $100m a year from an ongoing Defence programme, and would go some way
towards funding the frigates and aircraft acquisitions.
But Dr Mapp said a future government would also have to find additional cash to cover the cost of all three projects.
The two Anzac frigates, Te Kaha and Te Mana, were ordered in 1989 at a cost of $1.2b but not commissioned until
1997 and 1999. They will need a costly refit between now and 2020 and will be out of service by 2030.

 

[recce.k1]

Interesting tempters from MinDef:

Thanks Mug (and here's the link for those interested etc):
$5b bill for Defence Force | Stuff.co.nz

Funding for two ANZAC replacements is set (I think this early on in the piece it's a moot point whether it's two or three, there's years to go before the pollies on both sides of the ditch arm wrestle those details out i.e. once project scope, costs and industry particpation etc, are determined - after the downgrading events of the last 20 years here, it's simply good to see that the replacements for the Frigates, Orions and Hercs are on the planning board).

So what could NZ get for $1.2B as Herc replacements? (Presumably that's NZ$ and today's value etc)? Around 2002 Labour rejected 8 C130J's for $800M NZ. Hopefully Aussie Digger's suggestion of a C17 buy-in with Australia might eventuate?

Here's the other backgrounder article on the subject:
Review of military set to free up $100m | Stuff.co.nz

Good to see the Govt and Lance Beath looking at the wider regional picture (pity Phil Goff still lives in the past of a fanciful "benign strategic environment" judging by his woeful comments)!

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks Mug (and here's the link for those interested etc):
$5b bill for Defence Force | Stuff.co.nz

Funding for two ANZAC replacements is set (I think this early on in the piece it's a moot point whether it's two or three, there's years to go before the pollies on both sides of the ditch arm wrestle those details out i.e. once project scope, costs and industry particpation etc, are determined - after the downgrading events of the last 20 years here, it's simply good to see that the replacements for the Frigates, Orions and Hercs are on the planning board).

So what could NZ get for $1.2B as Herc replacements? (Presumably that's NZ$ and today's value etc)? Around 2002 Labour rejected 8 C130J's for $800M NZ. Hopefully Aussie Digger's suggestion of a C17 buy-in with Australia might eventuate?

Here's the other backgrounder article on the subject:
Review of military set to free up $100m | Stuff.co.nz

Good to see the Govt and Lance Beath looking at the wider regional picture (pity Phil Goff still lives in the past of a fanciful "benign strategic environment" judging by his woeful comments)!

Hopefully NZ will start the frigate replacement selection programme within the next 5-10 years. If they fail to do so, there is the distinct possibility NZ might have to make a MOTS purchase, as opposed to a purchase with Kiwi content. Additionally, the RNZN might lose out on the chance to have a sister/similar class of vessel to the RAN "Anzac II" since that programme is expected to comment in the 2018-2020 timeframe.

One area of worry for me is that the expected pricetags for some capability replacements, like the (NZ)$1.2 bil. Hercules replacement programme... Is that the expected initial purchase cost, or is that the expected 'whole of service life' expected cost? If the 'whole service life' cost, then that would mean only ~(NZ)$400 mil. would be available for the initial purchase, training and establishment. I would need to sit down, check some prices and do currency conversions, but that suggests to me that the RNZAF could potentially replace the entire C-130 fleet with 1.5 C-17s... Or perhaps 4 C-130J Herc II's. Better than nothing, but either option would seem to be a reduction in overall capability.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

One area of worry for me is that the expected pricetags for some capability replacements, like the (NZ)$1.2 bil. Hercules replacement programme... Is that the expected initial purchase cost, or is that the expected 'whole of service life' expected cost? If the 'whole service life' cost, then that would mean only ~(NZ)$400 mil. would be available for the initial purchase, training and establishment.

Judging by purchases in recent years (eg NH90, A109, LAVIII), I'd hazard a guess that the prices (NZ$ @ today's prices) are for the initial purchase price, training and establishment (and not the whole of service life expected costs - the latter would make most kiwi's faint - I don't think NZ uses that method etc).

Today $US 1 = $NZ 1.3525 (or $NZ 1 = US$0.7396)

So C130 replacement @ $NZ $1.2B = $US887M (or 849M Euro - eg for a possible A400 option).

P3 replacement @ $NZ $1.6B - $2B = $US 1.18B - 1.48B

If a P8 costs around $US290 (?) although not sure if that excludes most training, spares and establishment costs or not - we'd need to know what these "typically" would be to make an "informed" guess on numbers. Trying to track the Oz P-8 deal costs down for a rough comparison.....

But US$290M is approx $NZ393M, so potentially that could be 4-5 P8 airframes best case (and less if worse case does include significant start up costs). Excluding any top end UAV in-the-mix of course.

If a C17 is approx $US330M ($NZ446M), NZ could get 3x C17's (and carry any big, fat, heavy current or future NZDF asset anywhere) and rely on CN235/C295's as second tier transporters (ok - wishful thinking time ).

Although I suspect the A400 might be the more affordable option. Either way with the legacy C130H's life extension giving them another 10 years of life eg till 2020 approx, the Govt may have some time up its sleeve to weigh up options (although I hope they are prudent enough to order, eg 5 or so years out, to allow for production, training and reaching operational status etc). In fact, the Govt could make up their minds sooner, order "now-ish" (eg within a year or so) at today's (now-ish) prices to save money, but set the delivery dates to eg 2017/18 etc???

 

[Todjaeger]

Judging by purchases in recent years (eg NH90, A109, LAVIII), I'd hazard a guess that the prices (NZ$ @ today's prices) are for the initial purchase price, training and establishment (and not the whole of service life expected costs - the latter would make most kiwi's faint - I don't think NZ uses that method etc).

Today $US 1 = $NZ 1.35

So C130 replacement @ $NZ $1.2B = $US888M (or 849M Euro - eg for a possible A400 purchase).

P3 replacement @ $NZ $1.6B - $2B = $US 1.18B - 1.48B

If a P8 costs around $US290 (?) excluding training, spares and establishment, we'd need to know what these "typically" would be to make an "informed" guess on numbers. Trying to track the Oz P-8 deal costs down for a rough comparison.....

I had thought the Kiwi NH-90 purchase was calculcated that way... That ishow/why 9 helis cost ~NZ$800+ mil, when the individual purchase heli price was ~NZ$35-40 mil. IIRC

I do know that the price for the Protector fleet NZ$500 million was not calculated with the whole service life cost, but from some of the overly large figures relative to the numbers/capability of kit purchased, it did seem that much of the time Government was going off the service life cost.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

You may be right Todjaeger about it being calculated that way (perhaps my interpretation is different etc - where are some kiwi professional defence analysts to explain or confirm?!) and most probably right about Project Protector - there does appear to be inconsistencies.

The NH90's included a training programme with the Luftwaffe (to short-circuit gaining experience) plus reportedly alot of spares up front (including a complete airframe as it was cheaper) - so presumably any further European purchases (A400 etc) would be relatively "costly" up-front compared to any US purchases.

A NZ National Govt IMO would appear more willing to join-up with the US logistic train (to reduce up-front costs and be able to better quantify on-going support costs) and simply buy US - but's that's just my simple opinion (I'm not saying that will happen). The NH90's and A400's (or AN-70's ) would contain alot of unknowns presumably. With this Govt/Treasury projecting defence budgeting out to 2035 I would have thought this would be a significant factor in their decision making.

 

[Todjaeger]

You may be right Todjaeger about it being calculated that way (perhaps my interpretation is different etc - where are some kiwi professional defence analysts to explain or confirm?!) and most probably right about Project Protector - there does appear to be inconsistencies.

The NH90's included a training programme with the Luftwaffe (to short-circuit gaining experience) plus reportedly alot of spares up front (including a complete airframe as it was cheaper) - so presumably any further European purchases (A400 etc) would be relatively "costly" up-front compared to any US purchases.

A NZ National Govt IMO would appear more willing to join-up with the US logistic train (to reduce up-front costs and be able to better quantify on-going support costs) and simply buy US - but's that's just my simple opinion (I'm not saying that will happen). The NH90's and A400's (or AN-70's ) would contain alot of unknowns presumably. With this Govt/Treasury projecting defence budgeting out to 2035 I would have thought this would be a significant factor in their decision making.

From memory, the NZ$800 mil. NH-90 'blowout' was for 8+1 NH-90 helicopters, or nearly NZ$90 per (including the parts spare), while there has been some variations based upon contracts, the NH-90 seems to have a per-unit cost of ~€26 mil. to ~US$31 mil. depending on which numbers are used. Given that NZ signed the order for the NH-90 in 2006 (when ~NS$1.93=€1?) could someone check my currency conversions for that year? As I remember it, the NZ dollar had been fairly valuable vs. the €, but the charts I come across suggest otherwise.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

NZDF in Afghanistan

I'll leave speculating about Defence Review plans on aircraft and ships until the Review is released, next month now, as speculating is rather pointless without any concrete facts etc.

Back to Afghanistan briefly, in late August the DefMin confirmed that NZ won't be cutting and running. A presence will be maintained for security in Bamiyan (and no doubt other small elements will continue to imbed themselves with Coalition units for experience etc).

Afghanistan stay likely to last till 2013 | Stuff.co.nz

A contingent of Kiwi troops is likely to stay in Afghanistan till 2013 – meaning New Zealand's military involvement there will have lasted a decade.

The provincial reconstruction team working in Bamiyan province is officially due to withdraw in September next year, but Defence Minister Wayne Mapp said yesterday the need to ensure a smooth transition meant a small number of troops would stay for two years after that.

"You can't just go from a substantial deployment to just zero. We've always been clear, and the prime minister's been clear, that the PRT would be stepped down progressively," Dr Mapp said.

******
The Government has previously signalled that some Kiwi military presence would be needed in Bamiyan beyond next September to maintain security while Afghan forces assume control.

Also I saw on TVNZ tonight that NZ requested some M-ATV's from the US (but they couldn't be released until US forces were equipped with them first). Interesting to note that NZ is still keen on obtaining them - must be at the top of the NZDF operational vehicle wishlist.

Modern vehicle which US use might have saved Kiwi soldier | NATIONAL News

It has been revealed that the US military in Afghanistan denied a request by New Zealand armed forces there to borrow one of its vehicles designed to withstand roadside bombs.

ONE News enquired under the Official Information Act, and the Ministry of Defence confirmed that the Americans refused to supply New Zealand with one of the special new mine-resistant all terrain vehicles, the M-ATV.

***********
"The US forces have a federal law requirement to provide that particular vehicle to all of their own troops first," Gawn said.

New Zealand's Defence chiefs say they still hope to get M-ATVs in the future.

Good to see MSM in NZ has finally worked out (after a few years) that the Humvee is no longer a frontline vehicle for US Forces.

Talking about the MSM, I wonder what happened with them finally figuring out that the NZDF needs its own UAV's in Afghanistan and the DefMin ordering a report into why the NZ Kahu couldn't be deployed? I assume the issue could be to do with control and command, and interoperability etc? Anyone able to comment?

 

[MrConservative]

I think in recent years - the last decade at least, there has been a horses for courses approach to defence aquisitions. Basically depending on the deal, the platform type and the projects orientation. That is why I assume Protector had a different funding stream to Warrior the rotary replacement.

As for the cost of the A-109's wasn't it 2007 when the deal was called and the NH-90's in 2006. The kiwi was oscillating greatly then. The yen which I follow mainly ranged between high 50's to high 80's over that 24 month period. Large cost blowouts possibly indicitive of a wayward approch to currency hedging strategies. The Auditor General has had a bit to say in the past over the fiscal management of the Ministry during the early-mid part of the decade.

Im am assuming that the big ticket items announced by Mapp with the funding allocation approximatations will be for known ballpark figures for acquisitions. I would think that maybe it is direct procurement and not with likely WOL as it is someway down the track for them to effectively account for it. They the MInDef/NZDF must have at this stage a general iidea of what platform they are after and what capabilities they think they require and how they are intending to operate it.

Yes Recce. Mapp has talked about the two tiered approach - high end and lower end. He has also talked about greater synergies with what the ADF use, in particular the Army and the RNZAF transport fleet.

Speculation of what they should do is tough as the whole thing goes down to the wire. We know what should happen but dont know what will happen. Hopefully this will soon all be over.