I have no problem with LTGEN Tim Keating ex NZSAS CO wearing the Sand Beret. He earned it. It is an impressive sight to see a 3 star walk into a room with sand beret on top. Power Dressing at its finest! 
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
NG.
Thanks for taking the time to give a summation of the Alach thesis.
I wonder who the PhD supervisor was? Hodge or Buchanan? I would say Buchannan. It has that Buchannesque feel to it. Cyber stuff/ Asymetrical Threats/ Niche Forces. Hodge would not have let the maritime stuff go through without a fight.
It is a pretty typical effort for the time thesis wise. It would have been started around 2002/3 with subject scoping, literature reviews and possibly interviews following that. Much of it written up in 2004 / 2005 for publication in 2006. Thus it seems quite dated now.
Some of the "Blue Sky" proferred policy advice and NZ Defence research from both independant "scholars" and tenured sorts 15-20 years ago - especially circa 2000/2001 is a little comical now. Was it shaping the potical narritive or being shaped by it. A bit of both. David Dickens though at Victoria was the Hawkish one and of course he got blacklisted for it. Never have really heard of him since.
Thanks for taking the time to give a summation of the Alach thesis.
I wonder who the PhD supervisor was? Hodge or Buchanan? I would say Buchannan. It has that Buchannesque feel to it. Cyber stuff/ Asymetrical Threats/ Niche Forces. Hodge would not have let the maritime stuff go through without a fight.
It is a pretty typical effort for the time thesis wise. It would have been started around 2002/3 with subject scoping, literature reviews and possibly interviews following that. Much of it written up in 2004 / 2005 for publication in 2006. Thus it seems quite dated now.
Some of the "Blue Sky" proferred policy advice and NZ Defence research from both independant "scholars" and tenured sorts 15-20 years ago - especially circa 2000/2001 is a little comical now. Was it shaping the potical narritive or being shaped by it. A bit of both. David Dickens though at Victoria was the Hawkish one and of course he got blacklisted for it. Never have really heard of him since.
Thanks but I haven't read the thesis. This was a light critique of an article that he wrote around the time of his thesis - Facing New Challenges: Adapting The NZDF And ADF To The Post-Cold War Security Environment. His supervisor was Stephen Hoadley and the thesis is dated 2006. I've looked it up and it's a long read from the looks of it - 508 pages including end pieces.
Hoadley is it. That figures. Auckland always tended to be a little more idealistic with respect to Defence academia than Victoria.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/election-brief-october-2014.pdf
One of the down sides of election year in Wellington is that every Department/Ministry has to prepare a Briefing for Incoming Minster, in anticipation of a change in government or minister. The BIM can consume a huge amount of time, as everyone tries to boil down a complicated multi-facetted work programme to a couple of bullet points.
The new Defence BIM has just been posted on the MinDef site. Unfortunately, section 9(2)(f)(iv) of the OIA (generally summariesed as 'withheld to preserve confidentiality of advice to Ministers') has been given a strenuous workout, meaning there are few nuggets of information to be gleaned. It could be my memory, but I don't remember the previous BIM being so heavily redacted.
Grateful if anyone can find anything in there worth sharing. Cheers.
One of the down sides of election year in Wellington is that every Department/Ministry has to prepare a Briefing for Incoming Minster, in anticipation of a change in government or minister. The BIM can consume a huge amount of time, as everyone tries to boil down a complicated multi-facetted work programme to a couple of bullet points.
The new Defence BIM has just been posted on the MinDef site. Unfortunately, section 9(2)(f)(iv) of the OIA (generally summariesed as 'withheld to preserve confidentiality of advice to Ministers') has been given a strenuous workout, meaning there are few nuggets of information to be gleaned. It could be my memory, but I don't remember the previous BIM being so heavily redacted.
Grateful if anyone can find anything in there worth sharing. Cheers.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
NZDF facility on Great Barrier Island
I just came across something interesting on another forum I sometimes look at. Some one has posted several photos (historical B/W and google maps) of NZ naval facilities.
The quote accompanying one of the google maps images states: "Little is said of the outstation on Great Barrier Island. A local tells me is equipped at times with very powerful range finders and radar, and its underwater acoustic array can detect loose cargo rolling around aboard ships".
Does anyone know anything about this? Not sure whether to believe it or not, but I like the idea of it being true.
radar and sonar capabilities would be limited by geography.
I just came across something interesting on another forum I sometimes look at. Some one has posted several photos (historical B/W and google maps) of NZ naval facilities.
The quote accompanying one of the google maps images states: "Little is said of the outstation on Great Barrier Island. A local tells me is equipped at times with very powerful range finders and radar, and its underwater acoustic array can detect loose cargo rolling around aboard ships".
Does anyone know anything about this? Not sure whether to believe it or not, but I like the idea of it being true.
radar and sonar capabilities would be limited by geography.
Ironically, I noticed when you put the link up that 75% of the redactions actually remained in the document, just hidden - it was pretty obvious! The file has now been replaced with a 'fixed' version after some embarrassing leaks from the justice ministry equivalent. Justice Ministry's briefing botch-up - National - NZ Herald News
Yes I read that story so might have to spend some time over the weekend having a look on file I downloaded earlier in week.
Sir Humphrey always said that boiling it all down into the Janet and John versions for Ministers is quite an onerous duty for such humble civil servants.
Page 17. $16 Billion of Capital expenditure over the next 15 years. That is promising.
The more that is not been said or revealed in this BIM the more serious defence is been taken.
There was also a radar station on Cuvier to the east of the Barrier during WW2. The main white wooden building was still standing a few years ago though very much overgrown and in poor condition and was located high up on the northern side of the island towards the west (the lighthouse is on the east).
Id be interested to know who and when put the airstrip on Great Barrier? Was it the MPW for the wartime RNZAF as a designated emergency landing strip as quite a few were established for the purpose around the country.
The New Zealand Paradox - new book by Wayne Mapp
I don't think it has been discussed on here before, but former Defence Minister Wayne Mapp has an interesting book, well monograph, out on NZ's strategic choices, covering similar ground as Hugh White's The China Choice does for Australia.
The New Zealand Paradox, published by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (a Washington DC thinktank) back in May - electronic pdf version here.
Generally in NZ we don't get enough of this sort of analysis in print, so I'll encourage everyone to read it. I'm still working my way through it (it's 90-odd pages), so I will reserve comment for now. A brief skim-through indicates that it is a pretty broad strategic overview - it seems to hit many of the right notes as far as I can tell. Should be worthy of discussion on the forum.
Chis73
I don't think it has been discussed on here before, but former Defence Minister Wayne Mapp has an interesting book, well monograph, out on NZ's strategic choices, covering similar ground as Hugh White's The China Choice does for Australia.
The New Zealand Paradox, published by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (a Washington DC thinktank) back in May - electronic pdf version here.
Generally in NZ we don't get enough of this sort of analysis in print, so I'll encourage everyone to read it. I'm still working my way through it (it's 90-odd pages), so I will reserve comment for now. A brief skim-through indicates that it is a pretty broad strategic overview - it seems to hit many of the right notes as far as I can tell. Should be worthy of discussion on the forum.
Chis73
Last edited:
I read it about four months ago and it was OK, but when he cited the Goon and Kopp clown show put me right off. Overall he does raise some valid points but I feel that he still toes the party line about minimal investment in defence. I realise that the line could be changing for the better but my feeling is that Mapp is still in the 2008 - 2011 timeline when in fact the world has moved on. If you read it with that in mind then it is a not a bad background paper.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I agree. Where I am living now there are a number of think tanks and private institutes that regularly publish and contribute to public debates, and frequent opinion pieces in the weekend papers. The degree of quality varies, but the fact that this is part of the discussion is encouraging. The only real defence issue that seems to be debated in NZ from what I see on the web is whether we should deploy troops/NZSAS, no discussion of broader security issues.
And our region is changing
China, Pacific island countries announce strategic partnership - Xinhua | English.news.cn
Chinese investment and engagement in the s pacific is minor compared to what it's doing elsewhere (africa), but it would be a shame to see our northern neighbours torn north, away from us. From what I have read chinas engagement in the south pacific is less about strategy and security and more about development, diplomacy and money for votes from Pac nations on international forums etc.
Looking forward to reading the Pdf.
Thanks
It is a very good summation of the region, its players, capabilities and geo-strategic issues. He has obviously in his semi retirement spent alot of time researching as to put this together involves hundreds of hours of work. Thankfully, he didnt quote Goon or Kopp, you may be thinking of another article from a few months back by someone else. My view is that it is fairly up to date and has considered Japan and Korea in the mix. The only typical Waynism is that he again he fence sits - he cannot make a definitive conclusion (decision) or offer advice from his knowlege or perspective. It is an article lacking a real conclusion. His conclusion if any is that is esentially lets have more talkfests to find a conclusion. He does not take the opportunity to tell us what he really thinks.
Just to be pendantic. Page 42 footnote No 40 in relation to the J10 when he states that it is equivalent to an early F16 C/D from about 25 years ago and references it to Air Power Australia grrrr. There was something else in there I took umbrage with but can't remember what it was although I did highlight it. Will try to find the original PDF. Have used this paper as a reference and don't get me wrong, I was just disappointed that he used the Goon & Kopp reference. Mr C does have it in that he doesn't reach a conclusion or series of conclusions which if he had would've made for a far better paper. Even so I would suggest that apart from my "harsh" criticism it is a paper worth keeping as a reference paper.
That $16 billion of CapEx sounds a lot but in reality is it? Breaking it down we would end up with probably $6-10 Billion in new kit with the remainder in spares, manuals, sims, support packages etc. Now I'm not overly optimistic that the NZ$ will stay around the US$0.77 - 0.82 mark so lets use a conversion rate of US$0.75. That gives us US$4.5 - 7.5 Billion which is not really a lot for flyaway / drive away / sailaway costs. If the NZG replace the P3s with like for like then 6 x P8s if the go down that path are US$2.4 - 3 billion then the US$1 billion for the ANZAC replacements, another US$1.6 Billion for say 5 x A400s, US$1 billion for C295 or C27J, US$300 million for EEZ patrol aircraft and MEPT, US$ 1 Billion for OPVs, US$1 billion for NZ Army gear then US$1 Billion plus of surveillance satellite of South Pacific Southern Ocean that NZG aim to have, US$500 million for Canterbury replacement maybe US$1 Billion for real estate upgrades and bound to have forgotten something. That adds up to US$11.4 Billion which is around NZ$13.9 Billion which doesn't include the full Type Of Life costing such as personnel costs, fuel, infrastructure etc. The costings I've used only allow for the unit cost plus spares, manuals, sims, support packages etc.Sir Humphrey always said that boiling it all down into the Janet and John versions for Ministers is quite an onerous duty for such humble civil servants.
Page 17. $16 Billion of Capital expenditure over the next 15 years. That is promising.
The more that is not been said or revealed in this BIM the more serious defence is been taken.
Last edited:
Some of those numbers both dont look quite kosher NG. We presently do not use the same funding models as Australia et al and there seem no pressure to fundamentally change accounting models to do so. OpEx and CapEx are dealt differently. You cannot easily extrapolate the two. Not perfect a $20B boost would be superb but in my view still a positive. Can you imagine what the other option would be like? I will not be anywhere like the $16b in capital equipment over 15 years is over a billion injected annually and seems about the right fiscal committment for the High Pathway outlined in the DWP cabinet doxs. In fact it is $5b more than I was expecting.
I wasn't using Aussie funding models. I am aware that we use the full Life Of Type costing model & that's why I put the rider in at the end. I'm not suggesting a 1 billion a year capex injection but I was looking at the $16 billion over the 15 year period and what we could get for it. Yes the figures are guesstimates in most cases, but I was just using it for illustrative purposes and I'd forgotten about the high pathway so it does look good in that aspect. If you would like i could post a proper break down as i see just giving unit prices.
Last edited:
I think they want an estimate of full life of type costs as an indicator of the expected investment long term and that is to guide the actual package that they choose to purchase. Policy/Capability/Cost/Outputs for example with the C-130J-30 v A400M v C-17. Calculating LOTC is tricky stuff and alot of defence costings depend on individual manufacturer contractual arragenents as well. The DWP Doxs had estimates of various platform costs for replacements and new capabilities. iirc circa $2 billion for 2 frigates, $1.6 - 2 billion to replace the P-3K2 with the P-8 pencilled in, $1.2 - 1.6 billion to replace the C-130s with the A400M pencilled, $120m for the LWSV which sounds plausible with some of the other in there as well - some of which has already happened like the Anzac Upgrade, SeaSprite and the T-6C. We also know that if they go for an Aegir to replace the Big E then the Norwegian deal of circa $250m is about right and fits midway into $130m - $420m range they used in one of the ppts they pubished in those Cabinet Docs. My point is that they are seemingly serious about achieving the high pathway and that broadly speaking they are planning to have the money there to pay for it.
If you do want to dig around and find likely estimates based on recent realworld acquistitions that would be interesting - but avoid US GAO, OZ DoD or examples from the MENA region because they each handle their acquisition projects differently.
If you do want to dig around and find likely estimates based on recent realworld acquistitions that would be interesting - but avoid US GAO, OZ DoD or examples from the MENA region because they each handle their acquisition projects differently.
Last edited: