One thing we seem to be focussing to much on is that the Christchurch Earthquakes economic impacts will put the kibosh on any funding for for say advanced fixed wing trainers. But the insurance and reinsurance monies will negate most of the that loss and this years government budget forecast a return to surpluses in I think the 2013/14 fiscal year. So all is not lost on the fiscal front.
Yes, my casual reading of the situation is that due to the two quakes NZG is having to re-assess its expenditure/priorities (yet again) and that NZG is now wishing to bring its expenditure under control a lot quicker than what was being planned originally (i.e. in the previous Budget etc). But happy to hear what others here more qualified in finance think etc. I also see the recent 2011 budget outlines defence cap-ex of $600M in the 2011/12 financial year ahead (up from $400M last financial year). Although unsure how much, if any, are allocations for previous/current projects eg NH-90 and/or for new eg advanced trainers or short-medium range MPA's etc (i.e. the two projects signalled to start about now or soon etc. NZG has tended to indicate (eg DWP) that defence expenditure could increase post 2015-ish anyway eg as short-term financial constraints are alleviated.
There is an election at the end of November this year and that will determine the make up of parliament and policy for the following 3 years. Outside of the 2 main political parties there have been shenanigans going on in the right wing and the formation of a left wing party which will have issues. The present government has quite a substantial popularity amongst the voters and at moment that should extend through to election. However there is an unwritten rule in kiwi politics that governments fall if the all Blacks lose and the Rugby World Cup Final is 1 month before the election.
Whilst I'd be suprised if National (Govt) continued to poll at > 50% popularity on election day itself (as they have since the 2008 election - a feat that hasn't occurred previously for decades prior), they should be re-elected easily. At this point in time the two minor parties you mention (Mana & ACT) will be lucky to scrape into Parliament (ACT is more likely to work with National - Mana won't of course). ACT's
defence policy appears supportive of expanding the NZDF (but I'm wondering whether this is simply their 2008 policy, updated, which suggests they didn't manage to achieve much if anything in their current "coalition" with National 2008-11 & unless somehow ACT were to win the election themselves, which won't happen of course, then I can't see much of their policy en-acted. I'm also mindful that (the modern) ACT tends to naval-gaze on structure and re-structuring too much, but I may be heartened slightly in that I had the feeling from the 2005 election that the new ACT leader appears to support NZ's defence relationships with eg the US, so perhaps he may offer more than their previous leader).
This next bit is off subject but I feel it is something that needs to be thought about and debated. NZ has a wealth of mineral resources that if exploited wisely would bring much and sorely need wealth to this country. We have a large proportion of the population that is struggling to meet basic needs. The levels of poverty in this country are high. We also have a substantial and vocal green population which in the normal course of events is a good thing. However we need to start exploiting our mineral wealth for the betterment of all. Secondly it has been suggested that there is a reasonable possibility that extensive oil and gas fields exist in our offshore continental geological structures. One of the reasons why research and extraction hasn't been done is cost but with oil prices now around US$100.00 (+/- 10%) a barrel then this becomes more economically feasible.
A collary to this is that if it is NZ Inc that is the largest beneficiary of this wealth then we can actively look at such items like an ACF and even other items which we could have only dreamed about. Secondly if the oil & gas fields are as large as thought the NZ$ would become a petrodollar. Thirdly we would have to increase our air and naval assets to ensure security of our oil and gas assets. Just my thoughts that I throw up to see what flies.
My reading is this is all likely in the medium-longer term. Definitely would need more patrolling assets (air, sea etc). But by then NZDF may be "flying" UAV's rather than manned ACF.
I think the biggest mistake in all this is, not maintaining at the very least in the short-term, a small jet-training type fleet (the one we've banged on about for years here etc). It would allow NZ to expand this "force" if geo-political situation required it. When we think about the potential of NZ's mineral wealth, we tend not to think about the same in the wider South Pacific. Seeing NZ is the protector for a couple of its "territories" and more-or-less other Island states, a strong MPA (and naval) force (with support/logisitics), including potentially jets & UCAV's would be useful.
As one example: But from whom the critics say? The answer is, can't say for sure at this point in time, but I'd suggest in the medium-long term as Island states assert their independance (and economic partnerships), we could easily see various other first world nations step-in to partner in mineral extraction with these Island states. Worse case scenario is these interests become threatened (due to first world rivalries spilling over etc) and "muscle" is brought in. Another thing, how many people know that the NZ Maori has direct historical connections with the indigenous peoples of Easter Island, which is administered by Chile? There were riots in EI a few months ago (and some Maori "activists" lent support to the indigenous peoples). What would NZ's response be if Chile suppressed future "uprisings" by armed force? Occassionally there's riots against French rule in French Polynesia. With Murora Atoll alledgelly (potentially) leaking radio-active materials into the lagoons and sea, I think we can safely say French nuclear testing is history there, but the French ultimately could stay or leave in due course (as calls for independance grows). If they ever do leave NZ loses a security guarantor in that area of the region, so will have to step-up itself. Whom would an independant Tahiti (or New Calendonia, on NZ's very door step) turn to for economic development and security? It doesn't have to be NZ, Australia or the US anymore, it could be any aspiring new power from Asia or South America etc. What's this got to do with NZ ACF etc? Well I'm suggesting NZ needs to lift its game and become the security guarantor for the South Pacific, like Australia is for its northern and north-eastern areas, especially as the US re-focuses and expects other like minded nations to pull their weight.
Another example: NZ should have the military means to intervene in a South Pacific coup (like Fiji), which would mean a "harder" air force to support naval / maritime operations. Sorry if this is very un-PC to say. But when NZ decreases its capabilities (and withdrawls from ANZUS etc), surely these result in such unintended consequences. As seen by USN fast air in the South Pacific several years ago, an overflight or two can make some of the amateur coup plotters think twice.
Ok these are just a couple of extreme examples. But we've talked about the obvious before (eg NZ helping with the defence of Australia & water shortages meaning the likes of Antartica could be eyed up by other nations eager to feed and water their people and land etc) so thought these musings might generate some debate about other future scenarios. The other thing is, as you mentioned in another thread NM, the Straights of Malacca, a major choke point, should that area be isolated due to military means (or even a NBC incident renders the area a no-go zone), shipping will have to re-route around Australia and into the Tasman Sea. NZ and OZ would surely find themselves expending huge amounts of effort, in proportions perhaps not seen since WW2, keeping an eye on movements etc.
Have we also talked about the recent Australian report signalling cause for concern on the Island states ratcheting up debts with donor nations such as China? What then, when the debt need to be called in? A deal to establish Chinese bases (to protect their ventures in mineral extraction etc)? I do admire China's greater forward planning and world-view when it comes to securing future minerals. I hope things don't resort to this worse case scenario of course.
So anything could happen (or not happen, thankfully), but I still believe there's a place for NZ ACF, be that manned or unmanned or a mix in the future. In the meantime this won't happen, but again, a small jet-training fleet though would allow better exercising opportunities for the NZDF to hone skills and again, expand if the need arises.
This is all pie in the sky stuff, but in the short-medium term as others have pointed out in recent days, NZ could simply do more with its existing assets like up-arm/sensor its new helos and Orions and still achive some respectable outcomes to support NZDF when on deployment etc, so this is a good place to start...
) - which means if Govt man-up they could have a (single operation) deployable fleet of 3 (2 op + 1 on maint.) to provide light armed recon for NZDF PeaceKeepers. Pathetic effort in the wider context, but in the NZ context (again think East Timor) could be a welcome capability.
