NZDF General discussion thread

[Volkodav]

Thanks for the background.

The Cruisers never really made sense to me but the carrier, especially with the huge NZ presence in the BPF seemed to make more sense. If not for ex BPF Kiwis moving over to the RAN the Australian carriers would have been a far more difficult proposition. The politics you outlined makes sense but it is a shame as a CVL would have been a far better investment than a pair of out dated cruisers while it could be argued that considering the Skyhawks that ended up forming the RNZAF ACF that a carrier or two would not have been a bad investment.

I understand there was a similar issue with the RAN in WWII with senior RN officers in the RAN making arrangements that the Australian establishment was not at all interested in. Such as the transfer of an entire squadron consisting of a carrier, two cruisers and six destroyers to the RAN or even the transfer of the new Armoured Fleet Carriers Implacable and Indefatigable to the RAN to work with the BPF. The RAN and RN were keen the politicians were not, they were perfectly happy sending ships where the US wanted them but otherwise keeping out of the way.

Too bad I say as Australia and New Zealand are both, irrespective of what the air forces and armies believe, maritime nations and carriers would actually have improved the power projection, air and land power of both nations more than any system. platform or organisational structure that the army of air force of either could adopt.

 

[MrConservative]

Govt pumps $100m into defence | Stuff.co.nz

With another $435m over the remaining 3 years. A good start and nice to see some important projects come to fruition!!

 

[ngatimozart]

Govt pumps $100m into defence | Stuff.co.nz

With another $435m over the remaining 3 years. A good start and nice to see some important projects come to fruition!!

That's good. There was an item on one of the media outlets a few weeks back stating that Police and Defence would get a slight increase in funding in this years budget. This $535m add to the operating budget, does that include the Endeavour replacement or since that is capex does that come from a separate budget?

Now on to another Defence capability issue, there is a rumour afloat that NZDF has had to strengthen the floors in the C130s in order to cart Gerry Brownlee, the Minister of Bulldozers around. As yet it has not been determined whether or not they will get safety approval to carry him in the NH90s. There is some doubt regarding the ability of the airframe to handle such a load and its ability to lift it off the ground. Even a chook would be struggling.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is full text of Ministers announcement about the increase in NZDF funding.

Jonathan Coleman Minister of Defence 29 APRIL, 2014

Budget 2014: Investing $100.9m in defence

Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman says the Government is committed to strengthening the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), and will be investing $100.9 million of operating funding in 2014/2015.

“This significant investment in our Defence Force, combined with the savings and reinvestment achieved through recent reforms, means the Government is addressing the long term funding gap which we inherited,” Dr Coleman says.

“We greatly value the ongoing work and commitment of NZDF personnel. The NZDF’s work is vital to wider New Zealand interests, and the tempo of activity is high. Recent examples include the Air Force delivering aid to the Solomon Islands, and supporting the international effort to search for the missing Malaysian Airlines plane MH370.

“The frigate Te Mana deployed to the Gulf of Aden to conduct anti-piracy operations, and the Navy continues to support a range of Government agencies within our Exclusive Economic Zone. Army personnel serve internationally in a range of missions, and closer to home, they recently supported storm relief efforts on the West Coast.”

Budget 2014 confirms the NZDF’s funding approach agreed by Cabinet in November 2013 after the Defence Mid-Point Rebalancing Review.

“The Government’s investment of $100.9 million in 2014/2015 is the first stage of an allocation of $535.5 million operating funding for the NZDF over the next four years,” Dr Coleman says.

“It is vital that the NZDF can continue to meet the Government’s requirements, whether it is carrying out humanitarian assistance and disaster relief work at home or in the Pacific, or contributing to wider global security efforts.

“This is why the Government is funding the people and equipment needed to deliver on the 2010 Defence White Paper – enabling the NZDF to protect and advance New Zealand’s interests at home, in the South Pacific and globally.”

The Defence White Paper signalled that new money would be required over time to maintain and improve NZDF capabilities. The Government commissioned the Defence Mid-Point Rebalancing Review to look at the costing of various combinations of capabilities that would enable the NZDF to meet the Government’s expectations.

The new funding outlined in Budget 2014 will enable the NZDF to maintain and improve its current mix of capabilities, and sustain and grow personnel numbers over time. It also allows the Government to continue to modernise and upgrade the NZDF’s capability.

“There has been considerable investment in defence under this Government. In the last year, we purchased new naval helicopters, army trucks and a pilot training package,” Dr Coleman says.

“What’s more, the Government will shortly be awarding the contracts for a new battle training facility for the New Zealand Special Air Service (NZSAS) and a systems upgrade for the Navy’s frigates. A decision will also be taken on a replacement for the Navy’s tanker Endeavour.”

Since 2010, the NZDF has operated within fixed baselines, reflecting the tough fiscal environment. At the same time, the NZDF successfully delivered significant reform with a focus on delivering back-office efficiencies.

“The NZDF has made significant progress on its savings and redistribution programme since 2010, and $204 million has been reprioritised across the NZDF,” Dr Coleman says.

“The NZDF remains committed to making ongoing savings and efficiencies as part of its future planning. This is vital in order for the NZDF to sustain its capability.”
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/budget-2014-investing-1009m-defence

I am wondering if the last sentence is just becoming a mantra that is put at end of statements just like full stops.

 

[MrConservative]

That's good. There was an item on one of the media outlets a few weeks back stating that Police and Defence would get a slight increase in funding in this years budget. This $535m add to the operating budget, does that include the Endeavour replacement or since that is capex does that come from a separate budget?

Now on to another Defence capability issue, there is a rumour afloat that NZDF has had to strengthen the floors in the C130s in order to cart Gerry Brownlee, the Minister of Bulldozers around. As yet it has not been determined whether or not they will get safety approval to carry him in the NH90s. There is some doubt regarding the ability of the airframe to handle such a load and its ability to lift it off the ground. Even a chook would be struggling.

It is hard to read at this stage without having a full balance sheet and drilling down one the previous years to find what was the funding streams for CapEx and OpEx. My feeling that is that both OpEx and CapEx are going to share In the windfall - though the FY12 year CapEx was down to $318 million (FY12) but rose again to $583 (FY13) on the back of a cash injection and continuing VfM savings. In some ways part of the CapEx spending got defered - maybe that is why a couple things to longer to get to fruition (T-6C and the extending of the B200 lease out to 2018). It is just $100m increase this year (FY14) as the Govt wants to make a small overall surplus for FY15. In my view they are still trending through the medium to high end pathway with respect to acquiring Capital Items. It is pretty much all on track. I expect more funding increases to be slighty ramped up on top of this allocation in another 2 years post DWP15 so that by 2019 alot of the small-medium projects yet to be resolved from DWP10 will be introduced and squared away - Endeavour, LWSV, Anzac Upgrade, Army Re-Equipment & Transport, and then a little later MEPT/EEZPatrol, Tranche II AW109 - then way clear for the really big stuff to be focused on post 2020 per Air Mobility, Maritime ISR and Surface Combatants.

I understand that the RNZAF S&S Branch have designed a reinforced cargo sling just for Big Jerry and they have rigged up an old A-4K buddy A2A refueling hose to serve him his favourite chicken soup when he flies so he does get too irritable.

 

[40 deg south]

It is hard to read at this stage without having a full balance sheet and drilling down one the previous years to find what was the funding streams for CapEx and OpEx. My feeling that is that both OpEx and CapEx are going to share In the windfall

The press release certainly gives this impression.

The new funding outlined in Budget 2014 will enable the NZDF to maintain and improve its current mix of capabilities, and sustain and grow personnel numbers over time. It also allows the Government to continue to modernise and upgrade the NZDF’s capability...

“What’s more, the Government will shortly be awarding the contracts for a new battle training facility for the New Zealand Special Air Service (NZSAS) and a systems upgrade for the Navy’s frigates. A decision will also be taken on a replacement for the Navy’s tanker Endeavour.”

The release announcing the funding talks about 'modernising and upgrading', and refers to three capital projects being approved. The para directly above gives a strong impression that a decision will be made on the Endeavour replacement prior to the election. Good news if that is correct, and sooner than I had anticipated.

 

[ngatimozart]

Article from The Strategist regarding the increase in NZ defence spending by Robert Ayson. Small number, big signal: New Zealand finds some extra defence money | The Strategist. Basically the increase for this year is 5% of the NZDF budget but according to the author, this sends a signal that the current NZG appears to have achieved some sense of reality about defence spending. I certainly hope so.

 

[40 deg south]

Article from The Strategist regarding the increase in NZ defence spending by Robert Ayson. Small number, big signal: New Zealand finds some extra defence money | The Strategist. Basically the increase for this year is 5% of the NZDF budget but according to the author, this sends a signal that the current NZG appears to have achieved some sense of reality about defence spending. I certainly hope so.

Flick back to page 183 of this thread, and you will see that John Newman picked up a ministerial speech advising a budget shortfall almost exactly the same size as the four-year funds injection just announced.
I've heard a rumour that the 2014 Budget will see the unveiling of a funding formula for Defence, probably pegged to GDP level. Will be non-binding, and therefore at the whim of any future government. But intended to give Defence a better basis for long-term planning.
Budget date is Thurs May 15, so only a fortnight to go until I find out whether the rumour has any basis in fact.

What Ayson doesn't put enough weight on is the budgetary circumstances of the government. Money has been extremely tight for the past six years, and it isn't just Defence that has felt the squeeze. Now that the economy is picking up and the governments fiscal house is in order, you would expect a more generous approach to new expenditure.
The converse applies to Australia - they have spend a decade or so spending like a drunken sailor, and now a cold wind is a-blowing. Given the new commitment made to the F35, I wonder to what extend the government will be able to prop up the local ship-building industry?

 

[ngatimozart]

I've heard a rumour that the 2014 Budget will see the unveiling of a funding formula for Defence, probably pegged to GDP level. Will be non-binding, and therefore at the whim of any future government. But intended to give Defence a better basis for long-term planning.

It's not a rumour. That is the DMRR which was done last year and the details of which will be announced in this years budget. It is designed to give NZDF a better idea of future funding so that it could plan more effectively. We won't know how it's structured until we see the official announcement.

What Ayson doesn't put enough weight on is the budgetary circumstances of the government. Money has been extremely tight for the past six years, and it isn't just Defence that has felt the squeeze. Now that the economy is picking up and the governments fiscal house is in order, you would expect a more generous approach to new expenditure.
The converse applies to Australia - they have spend a decade or so spending like a drunken sailor, and now a cold wind is a-blowing. Given the new commitment made to the F35, I wonder to what extend the government will be able to prop up the local ship-building industry?

What have you got against us drunken sailors? We spent our money wisely; some on liquid sandwiches & some on ladies, we always behaved ourselves only visiting churches, museums and art galleries The recent Aussie F35 commitment is not new. It is part of their AIR 6000 Project. From what I understand the previous Aussie govts and possibly the current one, are all talk about shoring up the local ship building industry but they don't have a long term plan at all and it's a boom and bust cycle with RAN getting vessels such as the ACPB that aren't suitable for what they are required to do. Pork barrel politics.

With regard to the budgetary circumstances of the NZG, there are revenue sources and streams that the NZG haven't accessed for purely ideological and political reasons, therefore losing out on probably billions of dollars annually. Budgetary circumstances are just a pollie excuse for slashing defence funding from the 2% that it historical was and what it needs to be. Both bunches of pollies are equally guilty in that context. You also have to look at the neoliberal ideology that pervades both the major parties and one of the major tenants of neoliberalism is the reduction of govt & state services.

 

[John Newman]

Flick back to page 183 of this thread, and you will see that John Newman picked up a ministerial speech advising a budget shortfall almost exactly the same size as the four-year funds injection just announced.
I've heard a rumour that the 2014 Budget will see the unveiling of a funding formula for Defence, probably pegged to GDP level. Will be non-binding, and therefore at the whim of any future government. But intended to give Defence a better basis for long-term planning.
Budget date is Thurs May 15, so only a fortnight to go until I find out whether the rumour has any basis in fact.

What Ayson doesn't put enough weight on is the budgetary circumstances of the government. Money has been extremely tight for the past six years, and it isn't just Defence that has felt the squeeze. Now that the economy is picking up and the governments fiscal house is in order, you would expect a more generous approach to new expenditure.
The converse applies to Australia - they have spend a decade or so spending like a drunken sailor, and now a cold wind is a-blowing. Given the new commitment made to the F35, I wonder to what extend the government will be able to prop up the local ship-building industry?

Just to refresh everyone's memories, I'll put the link to the article below and the particular quote too:

Defense Minister: NZ Continues Fleet Upgrades, Commitment to Security | Defense News | defensenews.com

The particular quote in question was:

With a clear strategic vision in place, the next big challenge was funding. The government, he told delegates, had identified a $537 million shortfall in operational funding by 2021 and a $4 billion shortfall in capital funding by the mid 2020s.

I think I said at the time that the $537 shortfall in operational funding was a pretty big number (based on the size of the NZ Defence budget), it was the size of the shortfall in capital funding, $4 Billion, that really stood out.

It's good to see that your Government is putting some extra money into defence, but still, that $4 Billion big black hole mentioned, is going to be a bloody big hole to fill!!!

Cheers,

 

[ngatimozart]

Just to refresh everyone's memories, I'll put the link to the article below and the particular quote too:

Defense Minister: NZ Continues Fleet Upgrades, Commitment to Security | Defense News | defensenews.com

The particular quote in question was:



I think I said at the time that the $537 shortfall in operational funding was a pretty big number (based on the size of the NZ Defence budget), it was the size of the shortfall in capital funding, $4 Billion, that really stood out.

It's good to see that your Government is putting some extra money into defence, but still, that $4 Billion big black hole mentioned, is going to be a bloody big hole to fill!!!

Cheers,

Thanks John and yes $4 billion is a humongous hole to fill, but I suppose when you look at it, the amount is spread over 15+ years. It's as though its all having to been acquired within the next 5 years. The pollies of both stripes have bought this block obsolescence and all its associated problems on themselves by continuously deferring capability replacement.

 

[John Newman]

Thanks John and yes $4 billion is a humongous hole to fill, but I suppose when you look at it, the amount is spread over 15+ years. It's as though its all having to been acquired within the next 5 years. The pollies of both stripes have bought this block obsolescence and all its associated problems on themselves by continuously deferring capability replacement.

NG, g'day mate!

Yes I agree it doesn't have to be found all at the one time, but looking at the original quote, there were two shortfalls, $500m + $4b (total $4.5b), and the time frame mentioned was 'by the mid 2020s', that's a bit over 10 years from now, so that's an average of nearly $450m per year, every year.

But as you say it might actually be over 15+ years, still a lot of money to be found regardless!

Cheers,

 

[MrConservative]

Without that 4 Billion being found two of the three big ticket items would fall over. None of them can as they are critical. That fact that they are identifying it and megaphoning it means that they want to do something about it. In perspective it is just 10 weeks health, welfare or education funding. Improved cost control over those items let alone the other areas of govt they actually waste money on over the next 15 years and it is more than doable even without an expanding economy. Fortunately the economy is trucking along in the macro sense.

 

[John Newman]

Without that 4 Billion being found two of the three big ticket items would fall over. None of them can as they are critical. That fact that they are identifying it and megaphoning it means that they want to do something about it. In perspective it is just 10 weeks health, welfare or education funding. Improved cost control over those items let alone the other areas of govt they actually waste money on over the next 15 years and it is more than doable even without an expanding economy. Fortunately the economy is trucking along in the macro sense.

Mr C,

To put it in the context of the Australian Defence budget, that $4 billion would be the equivalent of somewhere between $30-$40 Billion, that's the Collins replacement, and then some, gone.

Even $4 Billion gone from the ADF budget would be the equivalent of the budget allocation for the P-8A's.

But as you say, the fact that they are identifying and talking about it means that hopefully they are serious about filling that hole too, normally if a political party had such an issue/shortfall facing it, and it intended to do nothing, then they wouldn't mention it all!!

 

[MrConservative]

Mr C,

To put it in the context of the Australian Defence budget, that $4 billion would be the equivalent of somewhere between $30-$40 Billion, that's the Collins replacement, and then some, gone.

Even $4 Billion gone from the ADF budget would be the equivalent of the budget allocation for the P-8A's.

But as you say, the fact that they are identifying and talking about it means that hopefully they are serious about filling that hole too, normally if a political party had such an issue/shortfall facing it, and it intended to do nothing, then they wouldn't mention it all!!

Not to put a too finer word on it - us finding an extra $4 Billion over 10 years is a little easier than Australia finding $40 Billion going on what the Bank Economists are saying. The Austalian Treasurer's over the next 15 years are going to have a few more magic tricks up their sleeve than our guys because from what I understand the ADF aquistition program is underfunded by a lot more than $40 billion out to 2030. Some media reports put the unfunded figure at $200 Billion if K-Rudds 2009 White Paper is followed. Some of that may be BS but even half of that is still substantial.

 

[John Newman]

Not to put a too finer word on it - us finding an extra $4 Billion over 10 years is a little easier than Australia finding $40 Billion going on what the Bank Economists are saying. The Austalian Treasurer's over the next 15 years are going to have a few more magic tricks up their sleeve than our guys because from what I understand the ADF aquistition program is underfunded by a lot more than $40 billion out to 2030. Some media reports put the unfunded figure at $200 Billion if K-Rudds 2009 White Paper is followed. Some of that may be BS but even half of that is still substantial.

Yes how the worm can turn!

Back at the end of the Howard days, there was no Government debt, 10's of Billions in the bank, by the end of the Krudd/Gillard/Krudd spendathon we are now half a Trillion or so in the red!

Even without the size of the current national debt and how Labor sucked money out of Defence to reduce it's budget deficits in it's few last dying years, I don't think I every believed for one minute that the 2009 DWP's aims were ever going to be fully achieved, especially at the level of Defence spending that Labor had actually been doing.

Despite the pressure currently on Government to slash and burn, one can only hope that the current Government sticks to its pledge to get Defence spending up to 2% of GDP within 10 years, and even then will it be enough?

I suppose we will find out in 12 months when the new DWP is handed down as to how 'realistic' it's goals are!!

 

[MrConservative]

Yes how the worm can turn!

Back at the end of the Howard days, there was no Government debt, 10's of Billions in the bank, by the end of the Krudd/Gillard/Krudd spendathon we are now half a Trillion or so in the red!

Even without the size of the current national debt and how Labor sucked money out of Defence to reduce it's budget deficits in it's few last dying years, I don't think I every believed for one minute that the 2009 DWP's aims were ever going to be fully achieved, especially at the level of Defence spending that Labor had actually been doing.

Despite the pressure currently on Government to slash and burn, one can only hope that the current Government sticks to its pledge to get Defence spending up to 2% of GDP within 10 years, and even then will it be enough?

I suppose we will find out in 12 months when the new DWP is handed down as to how 'realistic' it's goals are!!

Our DWP15 should be arriving around the same time so hopefully there is some meaningful dialouge and cross referencing of concepts. Finally with an NZ government at least discussing a move towards creating a more strategically focussed and coherant defence force there seems no time like the next couple of years to bed down ways in which the Anzac relationship can work better for both nations benefit. A decade ago we were really heading down completely different pathways with completely different priorities and ideologies. I am just thankful that we are starting to get a little bit of our Mojo back.

 

[Volkodav]

Yes how the worm can turn!

Back at the end of the Howard days, there was no Government debt, 10's of Billions in the bank, by the end of the Krudd/Gillard/Krudd spendathon we are now half a Trillion or so in the red!

Even without the size of the current national debt and how Labor sucked money out of Defence to reduce it's budget deficits in it's few last dying years, I don't think I every believed for one minute that the 2009 DWP's aims were ever going to be fully achieved, especially at the level of Defence spending that Labor had actually been doing.

Despite the pressure currently on Government to slash and burn, one can only hope that the current Government sticks to its pledge to get Defence spending up to 2% of GDP within 10 years, and even then will it be enough?

I suppose we will find out in 12 months when the new DWP is handed down as to how 'realistic' it's goals are!!

Rudd was a waste of space and I rate Gillard as the worst PM in my lifetime, how ever to leave the GFC, the structural deficit booby trap and the or the current strength of the Australian economy globally out of any discussion on current economic conditions is pushing it a bit. Rudds DWP was affordable and realistic when written and a lot more honest than the wishy washy POC that followed it.

When Howard was PM I despaired at the lack of spending on infrastructure and money being wasted on defence as opposed to being spent in strategically sensible and future proofing ways. I will always see the Howard years as a wasted opportunity where middle class welfare and unsustainable tax cuts were given precedence over future prosperity. Only the complete political ineptitude or Gillard and Swann let Howard and Costello off the hook. I personally rate the appointment of Swann as Treasurer over Tanner as Rudds single biggest mistake as it set up all that followed and let Costtello and Howard off the hook for billions wasted and the structural deficit. Imagine a properly negotiated mining tax and no "class warfare" bs, the carbon trading scheme that had bipartisan support as opposed to the greens tax, and sensible adult discussion on fixing the structural deficit before it became an actual deficit.

 

[40 deg south]

NG, g'day mate!

Yes I agree it doesn't have to be found all at the one time, but looking at the original quote, there were two shortfalls, $500m + $4b (total $4.5b), and the time frame mentioned was 'by the mid 2020s', that's a bit over 10 years from now, so that's an average of nearly $450m per year, every year.

But as you say it might actually be over 15+ years, still a lot of money to be found regardless!

Cheers,

Thanks for the interesting discussion, guys.

The existing government may be trying to chip away at that amount, pumping in $500+ million by the 2018/19 financial year. Although described at 'Operational Funding', I assume it is to help fund previously-announced purchases and probably boost the pay of specific trades where retention is especially poor.

I assume the $2 billion shortfall is overwhelmingly made up of the P3C and C130 replacements. My guess is that they will spread the burden by pushing the replacement of the P3Cs well back into the 2020s. That effectively gives a decade in which most defence capital spending will go to the air force.

The LockMart presser indicated that the ANZACs will serve into the 2030s.

Mr. Des Ashton, the New Zealand Ministry of Defence’s Deputy Secretary (Acquisitions) said that the Frigate Systems Upgrade (FSU) project will meet the Government’s aim of restoring the frigate’s surveillance, combat and self-defence capabilities in order to match contemporary threats. “It is a very important project for the Ministry and for the Royal New Zealand Navy and comes at about the mid-life point of the ANZAC frigate’s life. The project will provide the ships with excellent systems that will enable them to perform their expected tasks through to the end of their life in the 2030’s.

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks for the interesting discussion, guys.

The existing government may be trying to chip away at that amount, pumping in $500+ million by the 2018/19 financial year. Although described at 'Operational Funding', I assume it is to help fund previously-announced purchases and probably boost the pay of specific trades where retention is especially poor.

I assume the $2 billion shortfall is overwhelmingly made up of the P3C and C130 replacements. My guess is that they will spread the burden by pushing the replacement of the P3Cs well back into the 2020s. That effectively gives a decade in which most defence capital spending will go to the air force.

The LockMart presser indicated that the ANZACs will serve into the 2030s.

It's a $4 billion shortfall and I would think that part of this may be:
From Defence Long-Term Development Plan (LTDP) (September 2008 Update). LTDP 2008 - Projects Essential to Avoid the Failure Policy [Ministry of Defence NZ]

9. Projects Essential to Avoid the Failure of Policy.
P-3 Self-Protection

Description
This project proposes to equip the P-3 with a self-protection capability to counter likely threats, primarily man-portable infrared (IR) missiles.

Policy Value
The P-3 Orion airborne surveillance and reconnaissance force undertakes surveillance of New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone and the Southern Ocean, meets our South Pacific search and rescue obligations, and provides surveillance assistance to South Pacific nations. The P-3 Orion has a high utility for a wide range of civilian and military operations. It is one of the primary force elements contributing to our defence relationships with Australia and Five Power Defence Arrangements partners. The P-3 Orion also has high utility as a niche contribution to global security operations. P-3s are high value assets and can carry up to 21 people. It is important to protect those assets and minimise the risks to people onboard. The upgraded P-3 Orion will be able to support international partners in a broader range of environments.

Capability Gaps
In recent years the majority of fixed wing aircraft lost to hostile fire has been to IR guided man-portable missile systems. These shoulder-launched systems have proliferated widely across the globe. Lack of an effective self protection capability could therefore limit the use of our P-3s globally. The P-3 currently has no dedicated self-protection equipment. The aircraft's sensors inherently provide some early warning of long-range threats. However, man-portable missiles are difficult to detect and locate other than by sensing the signature produced by their motor burn. It is essential that these missiles are detected at launch and that appropriate countermeasures are used to defeat them.

Links to Other Capabilities
This project has links to the following projects and capabilities:
C-130 Self-Protection
P-3 Mission Management, Communication, and Navigation Systems Upgrades
P-3 Air-to-Surface Weapons

Current Status
Preliminary work is currently underway within Defence to scope this project.

Timing
It is intended that the self-protection equipment be fitted as soon as practicable after the delivery of the upgraded P-3 fleet from around 2011.

Costs
The indicative project cost is in the range of $30 - 40 million. Whole-of-life costs are not yet able to be calculated.

Has this happened yet?

Land Transport Capability Programme
Description
Formerly known as the General Service Vehicle Replacement project, this programme will replace the NZDF's general service vehicle fleet, including medium and heavy vehicles, trailers and mechanical handling equipment. It will be an integrated vehicle system that may include associated weapons, communications, protection and night driving capabilities.

Policy Value
The general service vehicle fleet is a critical enabler for land force operations. This fleet sustains and resupplies forces with fuel, ammunition, rations, personnel and spares and provides maintenance support. The fleet has utility in meeting a wide range of policy objectives.

Capability Gap
The current fleet of vehicles is approaching 25 years of age and is reaching the end of its economic life. The current fleet is not well matched to meet the Army's contemporary and future requirements. The majority of the fleet is cross country capable but has a limited payload of four tonnes. The vehicles have no armoured protection or self protection, and no integrated command and control or communication systems. The heavy vehicle component of the current fleet has a payload of eight tonnes but is not cross country capable.

Links to other Capabilities
This project has links to the following projects and capabilities:
Light Operational Vehicles
Multi-Role Vessel
Combat Service Support Vehicles
Land Command & Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Night Vision Equipment
Light Armoured Vehicles

Timing
A progressive vehicle replacement programme is expected to begin from 2011.

Costs
The indicative cost of this project is around $550 – 600 million. Whole-of-life costs are not yet able to be calculated.

Well we've bought 194 MAN vehicles at a cost of $113 million to replace 290 medium to heavy vehicles beehive.govt.nz - New Defence trucks delivered to units. So what about the extra 90 that are not being replaced in this project? Will they be a COTS buy or are those vehicles gone for good and NZDF has again to make do with less? Medium Heavy Operational Vehicles [Ministry of Defence NZ]

10. Projects Necessary to Avoid the Failure of Policy
LTDP 2008 - Projects Necessary to Avoid Failure of Policy [Ministry of Defence NZ]

P-3 Air-to-Surface Weapons
Description
This project proposes to equip the P-3 aircraft with an air-to-surface weapon capability.

Policy Value
Equipping the P-3 aircraft with an air-to-surface weapon capability would significantly enhance the value of these aircraft in fulfilling policy roles relating to the territorial sovereignty of New Zealand and Australia, play an appropriate role in the maintenance of security in the Asia-Pacific region, and participating in Five Power Defence Arrangements.

Capability Gap
The P-3 provides targeting information but does not have an air-to-surface weapon capability. The inability to take immediate action against surface threats limits the P-3's ability to provide force protection for New Zealand naval vessels, particularly the ANZACs, Multi-Role Vessel and Patrol Vessels. This deficiency applies equally across the open ocean and littoral environments.

Links to other Capabilities
This project has links to the following projects and capabilities:
P-3 Mission Management, Communication, and Navigation Systems Upgrades
Multi-Role Vessel
Patrol Vessels
ANZAC Class Frigates

Timing
The timing of this project is dependent on the completion of the P-3 mission systems upgrade and needs to be considered in coordination with the P-3 Self-Protection project to ensure the availability of aircraft for operational tasking.

Costs
The indicative cost of this project is around $35 - 45 million. Whole-of-life costs are not yet able to be calculated.

Has this study been done or has it been canned?

NZDF Torpedo Replacement
Description
This project proposes to replace the torpedoes for the ANZAC frigates, P-3 Orions and SH-2G Seasprite helicopters to maintain the ANZACs basic self-defence and the P-3s capability against sub-surface threats. Together, these help to protect escorted vessels from sub-surface threats and the P-3s area anti-submarine capability.

Policy Value
The role of the Naval Combat Force with embarked SH-2G Seasprite Helicopters is to meet military tasks, in support of the Government's regional and global objectives. The ANZACs are important to the protection of Australia/New Zealand territorial sovereignty, for participating in Five Power Defence Arrangements, supporting our relationships with regional partners, and undertaking peace support and other operations in the Asia-Pacific and beyond. These environments contain significantly higher threats to surface vessels than New Zealand's immediate environs, including air and sub-surface threats. Torpedoes provide a basic self-defence capability against sub-surface threats, and enable the ANZACs and other escorted vessels to be safely deployed in these environments. The P-3s require a torpedo replacement to maintain their current capability to fulfil the above policy roles.

Capability Gap
The current torpedoes are becoming increasingly obsolescent and will reach the end of their life between 2009 - 2014, increasing the risk to the ANZACs and other vessels they protect in areas where sub-surface threats may be encountered. The absence of a torpedo capability would impact on the ability of the NZDF to provide support for peace enforcement operations and limit the utility of the ANZACs as a contribution to the protection of New Zealand/Australia territorial sovereignty.
The absence of a torpedo capability would also mean that the P-3 aircraft would be unable to contribute to the protection for New Zealand naval or other friendly vessels against submarine threats.

Links to other Capabilities
This project has links to the following projects and capabilities:
ANZAC Class Self-Defence Upgrade
Multi-Role Vessel
P-3 Air-to-Surface Weapons
P-3 Mission Management, Communication, and Navigation Systems Upgrades
HMNZS Endeavour

Current Status (2008)
Preliminary work is underway within Defence to scope this project. Options to mitigate the decaying inventory are being investigated. A scoping study is under development to align this project with the introduction into service of the first upgraded ANZAC Class Frigate. It is expected that the type of torpedo to replace the Mark 46 series will be determined by costs, primarily platform integration costs.

Timing
The current Mark 46 Mod 2 torpedo will not be supportable beyond 2009. A replacement will need to be in service before the expiry of the maintenance life of current torpedoes in 2012-14.

Costs
The indicative cost of this project is around $70 - 80 million. The estimated life is about 15 years. Whole-of-life costs are not yet able to be calculated.

I've heard rumours that NZDF are now having the USN searching through their stocks for any Mk 46 Mod 2s with maintenance life left in them. The NZG have had 6 years to sort this out.

NZDF Satellite Communications Capability
Description
This project involves the acquisition of a guaranteed secure satellite communications capability for the NZDF.

Policy Value
Strategic communications in the form of high band-width capability is required to support NZDF deployments. The NZDF needs to be able to provide guaranteed secure communications to its operational deployments in a manner which is interoperable with potential coalition partners, particularly Australia. The NZDF also needs to be able to provide immediate strategic communications into the Pacific in support of whole-of-government operations, such as humanitarian assistance.

Capability Gap
Currently, the NZDF does not have a guaranteed secure strategic communications capability. To support existing missions, satellite capability is organised on an ad-hoc basis using commercial or coalition partner satellites. Neither system is able to guarantee secure, uninterrupted capability. The future growth of the NZDF's command and control capability will require significantly more secure band-width than currently utilised.

This project is in hand and under way. Strategic Bearer Network [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Apart from the WGS purchase which IIRC is in the region of $1 billion, the rest would amount to roughly $250 - 300 million. Then there is the MPSC (Endeavour replacement), LOSC (Littoral ship), the NZDF strategic and tactical fixed wing airlift capability, the Steyr rifle replacement, EEZ patrol aircraft and maybe the Army mortar replacement. Thats the next 10 years. After that there are big cost items being the P3K2, FFH, Protector fleet and Canterbury replacements. We generally accept 2 FFHs are not enough and a third is a must and also the OPVs and IPVs should be replaced with vessels that can act similar to GP frigates in the NZ and South Pacific environment as well as undertaking current IPV & OPV taskings. Therefore if one looks out to 2035 as per CDFs goal then $4 billion may be somewhat of an understatement.