NZDF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

Lets be honest F-16s would still be a quantum leap from what we have now (uh nothing) so beggars can't be choosers and we will have to now re-learn the art anyway so no real point going all out plus I do not see anything wrong with F-16s in the context NZ would realistically and actually use them in, alot (ALOT) of countries use them being a bonus in itself in terms of co-operation, inter-operability and 'sharing' etc.

The major ex will be Southern Katipo Ngati, it goes on for quite awhile with different stages, kinda in pre-lim build ups at the moment eventually getting to the grand finale later in the year.

I would like to think the US would not spy on us however........................not that they'd get much anyway, need something worth spying on first.

If we were to get an F16 deal similar to the one in 1997 the I'd say go for it because that was a really good deal and a hard one to beat. However if we had to purchase them at current rates, the Gripen would be cheaper and it is touted to be at least 10% cheaper to operate than a F16, plus it offers greater potential. The down side to it is its shorter legs.

RE Southern Katipo, I'm waiting to see a NH90 fly over. Haven't seen one yet.

 

[ngatimozart]

Text of joint statement by NZ Def Min and US Sec Def.

MMEDIATE RELEASE No. 749-13
October 28, 2013
Joint Statement by United States Secretary of Defense and New Zealand Minister of Defense

The United States Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and New Zealand Minister of Defense Jonathan Coleman met today in Washington and acknowledged the significant accomplishments in expanding defense cooperation between the United States and New Zealand since the Washington Declaration was signed last year.

During the meeting Secretary Hagel and Minister Coleman:

• Noted that New Zealand and the United States have worked side-by-side in Afghanistan over the last ten years, including in the context of New Zealand’s Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamyan Province.

• Confirmed that cooperation on peacekeeping would be expanded into capacity building activities in the Asia-Pacific region, commencing with New Zealand providing military instructors to U.S.-led Global Peacekeeping Operations Initiative from 2014.

• Welcomed the increased cooperation on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in the Asia-Pacific. The U.S.-led exercise, Pacific Partnership, and the New Zealand-led exercise, Tropic Twilight, demonstrated both countries’ abilities to work together in the interests of the region.

• Noted the very successful meeting of Pacific Army chiefs from the Asia-Pacific, co-chaired by New Zealand and the United States in Auckland in September, which focused on working together as a region on peace operations in a United Nations context.

• Noted the importance of continued dialogue on the shared challenge of cyber-security.

• Reviewed other achievements of the past year, including a productive set of exercise and training initiatives, high level visits in both directions, and the holding of the inaugural bilateral defense policy dialogue in Honolulu.

• Looked ahead to further positive interactions in the near future, including military-to-military talks in November, the United States’ participation in Exercise Southern Katipo, New Zealand’s deployment of the frigate Te Mana in the anti-piracy Combined Maritime Forces in the Gulf of Aden, and

• Discussed New Zealand’s participation in the upcoming Rim of the Pacific Exercise, the largest multilateral exercise in the world. Secretary Hagel notified Minister Coleman that he had authorized the New Zealand navy to dock at the U.S. naval port at Pearl Harbor during the exercise.

Secretary Hagel and Minister Coleman agreed that the year’s achievements, and upcoming engagements, demonstrated the strength and vitality of the strong friendship between the two countries, and that this provided a strong platform for working closely together into the future.
Defense.gov News Release: Joint Statement by United States Secretary of Defense and New Zealand Minister of Defense

From the transcript of the press conference:

Department of Defense Press Briefing by Secretary Hagel and Foreign Minister Coleman in the Pentagon Briefing Room

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL: Good afternoon. New Zealand Minister of Defense Jonathan Coleman and I just finished a very positive and productive working lunch, where we reinforced the close ties between the United States and New Zealand. Having fought together in every major conflict of the last century, including Afghanistan, our bonds are rooted not only in our common interests as Pacific nations, but also in the history and the values we share.

Our partnership is important. It's important to peace and prosperity in the Asia Pacific, and the United States remains committed to strengthening this partnership as one component of our rebalance to the region. One of the themes we emphasized today was the significant progress we've made in expanding our defense cooperation since the Washington declaration was signed last year. In addition to high-level visits like this one, we've had a productive set of exercises and training initiatives, the first joint defense policy talks in almost three decades, and the successful meeting of Pacific army chiefs from Asia Pacific nations, which our two nations co-chaired in Auckland last month.

That meeting focused on how we can work together on global peacekeeping operations, a central part of where we hope to improve our partnership. Today, Minister Coleman and I confirmed that we will continue to work more closely together on peacekeeping issues, with New Zealand providing military instructors to the U.S.-led global peacekeeping operation initiative beginning next year.

We also discussed the benefits of our increased cooperation on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in Asia Pacific. Both our nations have led multilateral exercises to help improve our coordination in these operations, demonstrating our ability to work together in the interests in the region.

All of these areas of our cooperation underscore the broad nature of our defense relationship. We look forward to continuing to deepen our defense cooperation in the future. Near-term steps include military-to-military talks next month in Honolulu, New Zealand's deployment of a frigate to a multinational anti-piracy coalition in the Gulf of Aden, and the United States' upcoming participation in what will be New Zealand's largest-ever multinational and interagency exercise.

Further on the horizon, we're looking forward to New Zealand's full participation in next year's RIMPAC [Rim of the Pacific Exercise], which is the world's largest multinational naval exercise. Today, I authorized a New Zealand navy ship to dock at Pearl Harbor for RIMPAC 2014 and extended that invitation to Minister Coleman. This will be the first time a New Zealand navy ship will be -- have visited Pearl Harbor in more than 30 years. The docking of this ship at Pearl Harbor will be another act in strengthening our relationship and the rebalance to the Pacific.

I'll now ask Minister Coleman for his comments before we take questions. Thank you. Mr. Coleman?

MINISTER OF DEFENSE JONATHAN COLEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I just want to begin by saying it's great to be here in Washington, and I thank you for your hospitality.

As you outlined, look, there's a long history between the U.S. and New Zealand. It's a history built on common values. Our troops have fought together in many theaters around the world, most recently in Afghanistan, and a big theme of our talk today was actually we are looking forward to future cooperation with the U.S. We're looking for common ground where we can extend cooperation. As the secretary said, we are very keen to help build peacekeeping capacity in -- among nations across the Asia Pacific region.

We've made great strides in the defense relationship over the last two years on the back of the Wellington declaration and then the Washington declaration. We greatly appreciate the lifting of restrictions on New Zealand ships docking in U.S. ports. And I want to thank you for that waiver.

We're also very pleased to see the resumption of mil-mil talks after 30 years. And where we're getting to, really, is the resumption of a tempo of contact, whether it's at the political level, the officials level, or the mil-mil level, which we haven't seen for a number of decades.

So we're looking forward to continuing a great business-as-usual relationship, where our people are exercising regularly together, where we're working on issues of common importance across the Asia Pacific region and potentially beyond.

We talked extensively about the U.S. rebalance to our part of the world. New Zealand certainly welcomes that. The military side of that is the public manifestation, but the point I made was that actually there's multiple legs to this.

There's the diplomatic leg. There's the trade leg, which is very important from the New Zealand perspective. We're very keen to see TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] negotiations concluded, you know, on quick a timetable as possible, and we welcome this new climate of engagement we have with the U.S., right across a range of portfolio and policy areas.

We've had some high-level U.S. visits to New Zealand over the past couple of years, starting with Secretary Clinton. Leon Panetta was there last September. And in return, you've made our ministers very welcome, and we're certainly looking forward to our prime minister potentially being able to visit the U.S. coming here to Washington, D.C., in the first half of next year.

So I just want to say, thank you for your hospitality. The relationship is in great shape, and there's a great future to come between our two countries. And the mil-mil defense cooperation area is one part of that.

So thanks, Mr. Secretary.
Defense.gov News Transcript: Department of Defense Press Briefing by Secretary Hagel and Foreign Minister Coleman in the Pentagon Briefing Room

I've taken one pertinent question out of it. One that kiwi newsies wouldn't ask. It was asked in two parts one to Hagel and the other to Coleman. the questionto Hagel was about sequesteration and its impact on the pivot to Asia - Pacific, so I've excluded that part of the question and Hagels answer.

Q. And for Mr. Minister, are there any U.S. weapons programs or acquisition issues you hope to get closer with the United States on, like -- in terms of, like, buying the F-35 fighter or other aircraft, other weapons including the Littoral Combat Ship-- having it do port calls in New Zealand?

MIN. COLEMAN: We're not looking specifically at any new weapons systems programs that the U.S. may have. What we have is a detailed defense capability program looking forward, which is basically based around the development of a joint amphibious task force. And as the timing of various capabilities comes up for renewal, we go out to the market internationally to see who can, you know, meet our requirements at the best price.

Now, that might be a U.S. provider or it may be Korea or somewhere else, but we're not looking at capabilities that the U.S. has and saying, "Oh, look, we want to get in on that deal," because we're a small defense force. We're very niche in what we do. And we need capabilities that support those very specific things we need to do, largely in our backyard, the Southwest Pacific, so largely around amphibious capability.

But we don't see, for instance -- you know, talking about F-35 fighters -- that's just not part of our horizon, because we can't see with our size the situation where we would, A, ever need that capability, but, B, ever be able to afford it. So, yeah, that's where we are. Thank you.

So it is Southern Katipo they were talking about and the media missed it. And I don't like the F35 anyway - even if we still had an ACF it'd still be out of our league expense wise. I noted the comment about us being niche in what we do and think that he's stated it well, just a shame our media don't pick up on things like this.

 

[EHamam]

Joint amphibious task force? Seems interesting.

I`ve just joined the thread, and I`m learning quite a lot about the NZ armed forces. We don`t really hear much about it here in Brazil. Anyways, you guys are a small but well-equipped force, and you are an island close to strategic trade routes. Shouldn`t the main focus be a defensive naval force to ensure trade even during conflict, and a small, specialized land force?
Also, the chinese are an important player in your scenario, I believe. Do you guys think they might use the old "big stick" diplomacy to have some advantage over your oil reserves? And do you think the US would allow it? That`d be a nice thing to analyze when considering the NZAF.

Sorry if this has been answered before, couldn`t find it. Oh, and I`ve been to NZ once, spent 15 days. Your country is absolutely amazing.

cheers

 

[t68]

If we were to get an F16 deal similar to the one in 1997 the I'd say go for it because that was a really good deal and a hard one to beat. However if we had to purchase them at current rates, the Gripen would be cheaper and it is touted to be at least 10% cheaper to operate than a F16, plus it offers greater potential. The down side to it is its shorter legs.

RE Southern Katipo, I'm waiting to see a NH90 fly over. Haven't seen one yet.

I agree on the price aspect for what you are saying, but I have to disagree on the airframe. If the NZG was going to spend the money on standing up an ACF again the only logical choice of aircraft that would fit the niche capability which the NZDF requires is the F35B in spades.

F35B fills all the tasking needs in protecting your EEZ and airspace and training to the greater NZDF,it also brings to the table the ability to influence force planning in a coalition environment, it bring common platform used by your allies in the Pacfic rim,it could with training integrate with a USMC Air-Ground task force, if you get invoked in a NATO tasking could quite easily see you deploy on a QEC carrier working with the British and best of all it bring a niche working with the RAAF/RAN we would most likly see you practicing on board the Canberra class and have the option using astere airfields in the indoneasian archipelago, if that's not a niche capability I don't know what's is.

Yes it's more money than Gripen but F35B gives you more options on how and where you deploy.

 

[ngatimozart]

I agree on the price aspect for what you are saying, but I have to disagree on the airframe. If the NZG was going to spend the money on standing up an ACF again the only logical choice of aircraft that would fit the niche capability which the NZDF requires is the F35B in spades.

F35B fills all the tasking needs in protecting your EEZ and airspace and training to the greater NZDF,it also brings to the table the ability to influence force planning in a coalition environment, it bring common platform used by your allies in the Pacfic rim,it could with training integrate with a USMC Air-Ground task force, if you get invoked in a NATO tasking could quite easily see you deploy on a QEC carrier working with the British and best of all it bring a niche working with the RAAF/RAN we would most likly see you practicing on board the Canberra class and have the option using astere airfields in the indoneasian archipelago, if that's not a niche capability I don't know what's is.

Yes it's more money than Gripen but F35B gives you more options on how and where you deploy.

F35B way out of our league financially although I very clearly see your logic. Try this for size. Its been suggested on the RNZAF thread some reactivated S3 Vikings similar to what Korea are doing. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/a...al-new-zealand-air-force-6601-137/#post270591

 

[MrConservative]

F35B way out of our league financially although I very clearly see your logic. Try this for size. Its been suggested on the RNZAF thread some reactivated S3 Vikings similar to what Korea are doing. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/a...al-new-zealand-air-force-6601-137/#post270591

It is interesting that you mention Korea. Jono Coleman mentioned in his reply to a question, the one in which you posted earlier:

"Now, that might be a U.S. provider or it may be Korea or somewhere else
..."

One has to wonder what drives the cognition of that statement under the particular circumstances and environment it was made in. Why is the word Korea produced in the context of that statement? It was a simple question in which produced a generally guarded off the cuff reply. However the inclusion of that word looking at the complete phrase is both an outlier yet an indicator and I do not think it was intentionally included. Nevertheless, you could therefore plausibly speculate that Korea is very much on the mind of Mr Coleman within the context of defence force procurement.

I found the discussion on the S3 very interesting and logical. It still is particularly capable aircraft especially with the 90s era upgrades it got. Unlikely for the NZDF as many pointed out. For the RoK it makes sense within their unique context.

Cheers MrC

 

[RegR]

If we were to get an F16 deal similar to the one in 1997 the I'd say go for it because that was a really good deal and a hard one to beat. However if we had to purchase them at current rates, the Gripen would be cheaper and it is touted to be at least 10% cheaper to operate than a F16, plus it offers greater potential. The down side to it is its shorter legs.

RE Southern Katipo, I'm waiting to see a NH90 fly over. Haven't seen one yet.

Yip still think we missed out on a great capability there and an even better deal that would have secured our future (literally), ah well water under the bridge now and would have been interesting to see what affect it would have had on the defence force then and now, good and bad.

F16 would've been good, Gripen could've been better, F35....ahh at this stage would be like us getting M1A1s, predators and submarines??? KISS. Too many other priorities now anyway to even contemplate without crippling another arguably thinning capability elsewhere within the services.

 

[40 deg south]

It is interesting that you mention Korea. Jono Coleman mentioned in his reply to a question, the one in which you posted earlier:

"Now, that might be a U.S. provider or it may be Korea or somewhere else
..."

One has to wonder what drives the cognition of that statement under the particular circumstances and environment it was made in. Why is the word Korea produced in the context of that statement? It was a simple question in which produced a generally guarded off the cuff reply. However the inclusion of that word looking at the complete phrase is both an outlier yet an indicator and I do not think it was intentionally included. Nevertheless, you could therefore plausibly speculate that Korea is very much on the mind of Mr Coleman within the context of defence force procurement.

A very interesting line of thought, Mr C. I can think of three reasons why the Minister might have Korea on the mind.

1) The RFI for the Endeavour tanker replacement has closed, and it is a dead certainty that Korean companies will be among the bidders. As CJohn posted in the Maritime Forum, a BMT+DSME bid is on the cards, following their joint success with MARS tankers for the UK and a AEGIR variant for Norway. Hyundai, who built the current Endeavour, are also likely to bid.
2) The Littoral Operations vessel RFI is currently out, and is also likely to be the subject of interest from Korea. But the RFI is still open, so the Minister won't have seen reports of any concrete proposals.
3) This one is a bit more speculative, but Korea's KT-1 Wongbee trainer has been mentioned as a very long shot for the new RNZAF training aircraft. It is in service with Korea, Indonesia, Turkey and Peru, but is viewed by many as too unproven to be considered by NZ. Some time ago the intent was to announce the new aircraft by the end of 2014, I'm unsure if this time-line is still on track. If this timing is still valid and the Wongbee is a serious contender, that would give the Minister plenty of reasons to think about Korea.

KT-1 Basic Trainer / Light Attack Aircraft - Airforce Technology
KAI KT-1 Woongbi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure looks a lot like the PC-9 in outline to me!

 

[ngatimozart]

A very interesting line of thought, Mr C. I can think of three reasons why the Minister might have Korea on the mind.

1) The RFI for the Endeavour tanker replacement has closed, and it is a dead certainty that Korean companies will be among the bidders. As CJohn posted in the Maritime Forum, a BMT+DSME bid is on the cards, following their joint success with MARS tankers for the UK and a AEGIR variant for Norway. Hyundai, who built the current Endeavour, are also likely to bid.

The Aegir could be a front runner and possibly fitted out here or in Australia. If you read further back in the RNZN forum we've had a good discussion on it.

2) The Littoral Operations vessel RFI is currently out, and is also likely to be the subject of interest from Korea. But the RFI is still open, so the Minister won't have seen reports of any concrete proposals.

The RFI closes at 1200 NZDT 2/12/2013. Now I would not be surprised to see one contractor bid for both the MPSC and LOSC together because both are due to be inducted into RNZN around same time. Since the LOSC RFI stipulates modular capabilities I do wonder if the MPSC has a similar stipulation.

3) This one is a bit more speculative, but Korea's KT-1 Wongbee trainer has been mentioned as a very long shot for the new RNZAF training aircraft. It is in service with Korea, Indonesia, Turkey and Peru, but is viewed by many as too unproven to be considered by NZ. Some time ago the intent was to announce the new aircraft by the end of 2014, I'm unsure if this time-line is still on track. If this timing is still valid and the Wongbee is a serious contender, that would give the Minister plenty of reasons to think about Korea.

KT-1 Basic Trainer / Light Attack Aircraft - Airforce Technology
KAI KT-1 Woongbi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure looks a lot like the PC-9 in outline to me!

Who's been saying this? How are you aware of the timeline for the Advanced Trainer Capability? Do you have sources for these two items of information?

 

[htbrst]

Who's been saying this? (aboyt KT-1)

The KT-1 was one of the options evaluated as an option in Pacific Wings last year as an example.

I think I've speculated earlier in the thread that there seems to be quite a bit of noise about a NZ/Korean free-trade agreement and the huge value to NZ of one, and something like a KT-1 order could be seen as a method to get one over the line, but its just speculation on my part.

 

[ngatimozart]

The KT-1 was one of the options evaluated as an option in Pacific Wings last year as an example.

I think I've speculated earlier in the thread that there seems to be quite a bit of noise about a NZ/Korean free-trade agreement and the huge value to NZ of one, and something like a KT-1 order could be seen as a method to get one over the line, but its just speculation on my part.

Cool thanks. I don't get Pacific Wings so would've missed it. Yes I can see the logic of using a KT-1 order to leverage a NZ-KOR FTA and with two ship builds coming up they to could be used to leverage a FTA.

 

[40 deg south]

Who's been saying this? How are you aware of the timeline for the Advanced Trainer Capability? Do you have sources for these two items of information?

A link to the Pacific Wings article mentioned by htbrst is here. It comes down firmly in favour of the Beechcraft Texan, but doesn't consider a few of the lower-end contenders such as the Grob 120, or give much weight to price. Interestingly, the following issue carried a letter from an RNZAF officer thanking Pac Wings for the coverage - I haven't seen that before and can't find a copy on-line.
Training Tomorrow’s RNZAF—A “Single†Solution? | Pacific Wings

With regard to the timeline, I thought it came from the 2011 Defence Capability Plan. I've just looked on the NZDF website, and can't find anything that specific.

The colourful table starting around p26 shows the Pilot Training Capability being delivered over the three years leading up to 2015.
P33 states that "The pilot training capability is expected to be delivered in 2014/15."

This implies a decision needs to be made PDQ, but doesn't provide a specific date. I am pretty sure I have seen the end of 2013 mentioned for a decision - I'm wondering if it was on one of the press releases around the release of the RFI or RFP? I've had a quick google, but nothing has leapt out at me.

 

[ngatimozart]

A link to the Pacific Wings article mentioned by htbrst is here. It comes down firmly in favour of the Beechcraft Texan, but doesn't consider a few of the lower-end contenders such as the Grob 120, or give much weight to price. Interestingly, the following issue carried a letter from an RNZAF officer thanking Pac Wings for the coverage - I haven't seen that before and can't find a copy on-line.
Training Tomorrow’s RNZAF—A “Single†Solution? | Pacific Wings

With regard to the timeline, I thought it came from the 2011 Defence Capability Plan. I've just looked on the NZDF website, and can't find anything that specific.

The colourful table starting around p26 shows the Pilot Training Capability being delivered over the three years leading up to 2015.
P33 states that "The pilot training capability is expected to be delivered in 2014/15."

This implies a decision needs to be made PDQ, but doesn't provide a specific date. I am pretty sure I have seen the end of 2013 mentioned for a decision - I'm wondering if it was on one of the press releases around the release of the RFI or RFP? I've had a quick google, but nothing has leapt out at me.

Thanks for that. An interesting read. From what I've seen (as an outsider) and understand from reading here and elsewhere things can be delayed - put on the back burner - for many different reasons such as financial and political (i.e., is NZG) reasons. Also the MoD acquisitions web page does not feature all acquisitions projects. There is a small lack of transparency around govt acquisitions and purchasing across whole of govt and as an outsider it almost appears to be a mini state secret. So sometimes we have to infer what is happening from reading sheep entrails and looking at crystal balls. We'll just have to wait until an announcement is made.

 

[40 deg south]

Thanks for that. An interesting read. From what I've seen (as an outsider) and understand from reading here and elsewhere things can be delayed - put on the back burner - for many different reasons such as financial and political (i.e., is NZG) reasons. Also the MoD acquisitions web page does not feature all acquisitions projects. There is a small lack of transparency around govt acquisitions and purchasing across whole of govt and as an outsider it almost appears to be a mini state secret. So sometimes we have to infer what is happening from reading sheep entrails and looking at crystal balls. We'll just have to wait until an announcement is made.

I'm a complete outsider too, and am only working off publicly available information. And that information is sometimes very limited.

As someone who helped purchase goods and services on behalf of a (non-military) government department, I have a bit of sympathy with MinDef in this regard. Putting out information that is accurate but doesn't disclose any commercially sensitive information or jeopardize the negotiating position of the Ministry can be bloody time-consuming. First you have to draft it, then get colleagues to review it, then run around the building chasing signatures to get it approved for release. Then rinse and repeat every time the project status changes. Since time is one of the things that tends to be in short supply when running a bidding/evaluation process, on a few occasions we would simply not draft any updates for the web and hope that no-one noticed!

Occasionally some outraged citizen would submit an Official Information Act request and we would have to compile the info plus get a slap on the wrist from senior managers, but we viewed it as a risk worth taking.

Not ideal practice, but understandable when a team is short of resources. And one point that the various reviews have made is that MinDef is chronically short of project managers. E.g.
"The programme has been insufficiently resourced to allow all components to be advanced concurrently. Critical to the progress of the programme is the availability of experienced project managers. The programme Monthly Status Report for April 2009 reported that there were insufficient programme staff available to produce all of the required documentation and plans within the required timeframes."
Evaluation report 4/2011 - Executive summary [Ministry of Defence NZ]

In addition to what are basically delays caused by staff/skills shortages, it is certainly possible to have acquisitions delayed for political or budgetary reasons. Typical would be discovering that the current year's financial allocation was only going to cover one of two intended purchases due to an overspend elsewhere in the Ministry, so a hard call would have to be made on which one went ahead and which one went on the backburner.

As you say, sometimes those of us on the outside simply have to wait for an announcement.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm a complete outsider too, and am only working off publicly available information. And that information is sometimes very limited.

As someone who helped purchase goods and services on behalf of a (non-military) government department, I have a bit of sympathy with MinDef in this regard. Putting out information that is accurate but doesn't disclose any commercially sensitive information or jeopardize the negotiating position of the Ministry can be bloody time-consuming. First you have to draft it, then get colleagues to review it, then run around the building chasing signatures to get it approved for release. Then rinse and repeat every time the project status changes. Since time is one of the things that tends to be in short supply when running a bidding/evaluation process, on a few occasions we would simply not draft any updates for the web and hope that no-one noticed!

Occasionally some outraged citizen would submit an Official Information Act request and we would have to compile the info plus get a slap on the wrist from senior managers, but we viewed it as a risk worth taking.

Not ideal practice, but understandable when a team is short of resources. And one point that the various reviews have made is that MinDef is chronically short of project managers. E.g.
"The programme has been insufficiently resourced to allow all components to be advanced concurrently. Critical to the progress of the programme is the availability of experienced project managers. The programme Monthly Status Report for April 2009 reported that there were insufficient programme staff available to produce all of the required documentation and plans within the required timeframes."
Evaluation report 4/2011 - Executive summary [Ministry of Defence NZ]

In addition to what are basically delays caused by staff/skills shortages, it is certainly possible to have acquisitions delayed for political or budgetary reasons. Typical would be discovering that the current year's financial allocation was only going to cover one of two intended purchases due to an overspend elsewhere in the Ministry, so a hard call would have to be made on which one went ahead and which one went on the backburner.

As you say, sometimes those of us on the outside simply have to wait for an announcement.

Thanks for that. It has given me clearer understanding of how the system works. Quite a bit different to when I was posted to Defence HQ in 1980 - 81. No such thing as Freedom of Information then. Everything was covered by the Official Secrets Act, and the public servants were on a permanent go slow. So if a civvy wanted info there was two ways of dealing with it. One was can't give it out because of the Official Secrets Act and / or any request would get misplaced in the system which was highly bureaucratic back then.

 

[Shanesworld]

Not ideal practice, but understandable when a team is short of resources. And one point that the various reviews have made is that MinDef is chronically short of project managers. E.g.
"The programme has been insufficiently resourced to allow all components to be advanced concurrently. Critical to the progress of the programme is the availability of experienced project managers. The programme Monthly Status Report for April 2009 reported that there were insufficient programme staff available to produce all of the required documentation and plans within the required timeframes."
Evaluation report 4/2011 - Executive summary [Ministry of Defence NZ]

.

How do you develop are cadre of people with the required skills for this role? Defence wouldn't make alot of capital purchases regularly and when they do its all at once across a myriad of areas. Then how do you maintain it? Which countries have a successful model we could pinch?
Singapore? Sweden maybe or Ireland?

 

[RegR]

How do you develop are cadre of people with the required skills for this role? Defence wouldn't make alot of capital purchases regularly and when they do its all at once across a myriad of areas. Then how do you maintain it? Which countries have a successful model we could pinch?
Singapore? Sweden maybe or Ireland?

NZDF should help alleviate this particular problem by spreading replacement projects more and actually have them rolling (ie set timelines from new and sticking to it) instead of thrashing everything for all its worth and then replacing at once in relative good times, when on-going operations dictate or after complete obsolesence otherwise this will only continue and come around again in another 25-30 years.

This would make it alittle easier for select industry personnel to flow from project to project during the selection, acquisition and implementation phase for each vs having to commit to one or another due to qualified/relevant personnel shortages at any particular time.

For now this would require keeping some assets past their 'planned' LOTs (we are already good at this) and replace others prior to create more of a manageable spread, not ideal but necessary to help reduce burden/pressure such as we are facing now. If this requires replacing some relatively new bits of kit and holding onto some older gear then so be it. For example the big ticket items such as frigates, MPA and transport aircraft should have been spread over 30 years(1 capability every 10ish) not the current 10 years to replace all 3. Too much of a big financial hit over a seemingly short period.

 

[ngatimozart]

NZDF should help alleviate this particular problem by spreading replacement projects more and actually have them rolling (ie set timelines from new and sticking to it) instead of thrashing everything for all its worth and then replacing at once in relative good times, when on-going operations dictate or after complete obsolesence otherwise this will only continue and come around again in another 25-30 years.

This would make it alittle easier for select industry personnel to flow from project to project during the selection, acquisition and implementation phase for each vs having to commit to one or another due to qualified/relevant personnel shortages at any particular time.

For now this would require keeping some assets past their 'planned' LOTs (we are already good at this) and replace others prior to create more of a manageable spread, not ideal but necessary to help reduce burden/pressure such as we are facing now. If this requires replacing some relatively new bits of kit and holding onto some older gear then so be it. For example the big ticket items such as frigates, MPA and transport aircraft should have been spread over 30 years(1 capability every 10ish) not the current 10 years to replace all 3. Too much of a big financial hit over a seemingly short period.

That is a logical suggestion and it should work like that Reg. Unfortunately for NZDF equipment acquisition is run out of the 9th floor of the Beehive and when there is a change of political masters that's when the lurchs happen. However one thing that is common to both major NZ political parties is that when they are on the Treasury benches they will defer large major defence acquisitions if they can. So we end up with the situation that NZDF is now facing of major block obsolescence across multiple major platforms.

 

[htbrst]

The Southern Katipo exercise is under way and the NZDF doesnt seem to be short of social media expertise so you can follow the excercise develop on a dedicated facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Southern-Katipo/528545430565468?directed_target_id=0

There are 1500 Kiwi participants, and 600 foreign participants from 9 countries. Quite a major US presence with 2 C-17's and 4 C-130's

It even gets its own video trailer: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxViNoKaixE"]Trailer - Exercise Southern Katipo - YouTube[/nomedia]

It will be interesting to watch it unfold

 

[40 deg south]

How do you develop are cadre of people with the required skills for this role? Defence wouldn't make alot of capital purchases regularly and when they do its all at once across a myriad of areas. Then how do you maintain it? Which countries have a successful model we could pinch?
Singapore? Sweden maybe or Ireland?

A coupe of background points relating to this and following comments. I should stress up front that I am not a procurement/contracting specialist - I was simply wheeled in to give technical or policy advice when required.

First point - all government departments contract a hell of a lot of stuff, all the time. Most of it is pretty unglamorous - building rentals, cleaning, new furniture, vehicle leases, research contracts, even foreign aid projects. This is a big change from the 'old days', when most of this stuff was done in-house.

MinDef is unusual in that is buying more complex bits of hardware (LAVIII vs Toyota Corolla), and crucially, it is not buying them nearly as often.

Most depts have an 'adequate' ability to do the routine stuff, but struggle with big one-off jobs. MinDef is not alone in this regard.The tendency of the best procurement staff to get poached at (much) higher wages by the private sector doesn't help in this regard.

(Given the amount of contracting underway all the time, I am surprised at how little attention successive governments have given to increasing the capability of the public service in this area. This is at least in part due to the supreme uselessness of the State Services Commission, a well-intentioned body that would be out of its depth in a puddle.)

I suspect (repeat - I have no inside knowledge) that much defence procurement work is done by 'generic' procurement people who would normally be working on photocopier leases, fleshed out with military personnel on postings to Wellington, who will be assumed to be technical experts. Given the gaps between major NZ procurements, it would be very hard to build up a core of experienced specialist military procurement people.

There is probably inadequate recognition that big procurement projects are a complex specialty in their own right, and military training isn't necessarily an preparation for running such a project team. The independent review of the Canterbury purchase certainly hinted at pretty significant cultural/ attitude issues.

How to fix it? Basically, apply more money! MinDef probably need to hire in more military procurement specialists, or at least people who have worked in major private sector project management (e.g. major engineering contracts). Unfortunately, with a fixed budget MInDef is probably unable to do this, without laying off a big chunk of existing staff. The the wages required to hire outside specialists would also blow the salary structure all to hell.

I still think it might be worth it - hire some heavyweight procurement specialists as contractors for the duration of a project, with built-in penalty clauses and bonuses. But that might be a step too far for NZDF/MinDef and the wider public service, who would have to work alongside people earning far far more and subject to different conditions.

As to 'who' does procurement well, Singapore and Israel are considered the gold standard. Israel has its own peculiarities (either home-built or US equipment effectively gifted) while Singapore is effectively a one-party state not subject to sudden policy changes. Take away these differences, and I suspect every country has projects that work and utter screw-ups. For cultural reasons, Aust/UK/Canada would probably be best, but none of these exactly have unblemished track records. Especially Canada!

Much speculation above, few hard facts. Feel free to disagree.