Jeez that was an appalling editorial from the Manawatu Standard (mind you even more appalling was the hot air being generated by the Greens calling for a Select Committee enquiry - they could save the taxpayer much time and effort by simply reading the official reports that have explained the delays and costs - which are inclusive of training, a simulator, spares and support over a number of years etc). Unfortunately Mathew Grocott parrots the Greens as being some sort of authority on Defence & procurement, which is an oxymoron in itself (imagine Defence commenting on environmental issues with any authority).
But what was more interesting about the editorial was the informed comments (and nice one NM)! One commentator states authoritatively:
"Since the requirements for what eventually became the NH-90, we signed an agreement to utilise the RAAF C-17's - far more suitable for moving the NH-90 where we actually want them. With this arrangement in place its no wonder the requirement to fit into a C-130 was seen as minor".
If this is the case then this solves some of the issues being brought up i.e. gives the NZDF and NZG time to work through the options (eg A400 timing) plus the on-going assessment of where NZ's air lift contribution fits into the wider ANZAC planning.
Also, whether it's just me, but I would have thought Defence would have a realitively easy job of selling greater airlift (airframes and capabilities) with the likes of the 3K's (who can better see the practical, political & foreign policy realities with their overseas counterparts, in both military and civil terms eg disaster relief, over the Treasury moneyhawks). I think what will also swing it for Defence is this greater ANZAC cooperation and the increasing US Asia-Pacific engagement. NZDF and NZG needs to offer credible and reliable contributions and that means more airframes to better manage the training, deployment and maintenance tempos.
However the bottomline will be funding of course (and what gets sacrificed to allow for a better X, Y and Z instead etc). With Defence reinvesting its savings to acquire new equipment (without any new funding), whilst this is positive for Defence to not lose the savings as such, I think this is where things will start to fall down pretty soon, if not already, in that years of having to come up with a target of $300-400M/annum surely cannot be feasible for an underfunded Defence Force anyway (and one which has capital charges deducted from its funding vote).
With the NZG still targeting 2014/15 to balance its books, and with the next Defence Whitepaper expected around 2015, I think 2015 will present a welcome opportunity to lobby NZG to provide additional capital injection funding post 2015. Otherwise more projects will be be delayed whilst savings are being sought to release project funding and we might reach the same ridiculous situation post 1990 cut backs that saw NZDF facing massive re-capitalisation investment all coming to a head, which even now has only been partially solved (and in some cases somewhat dubiously if one thinks about the "upgrade" projects eg C-130H LEP).
