NZDF General discussion thread

[aussienscale]

Defence is set to be a winner in this weeks budget according to the NZ Herald.

Sounds like good news, but the proof of the pudding is as always in the eating. Maybe a C17 purchase of two or three aircraft, he says hopefully.

It has been an interesting discussion with regards to the future of NZ airlift and VIP transport and what the budget and possible near future announcements will bring.

If dollars were not as big an issue, I personally would love to see a C17 and C27 combination with, dare I say it ? MRTT for VIP, troop transport along with re-supply. When you look at NZ physical distance for any international commitment, would be a handy piece of kit, along with re-fuelling the C17 and C27 for HADR ops etc.

What do I really think ? Well we have already developed and are implementing the ANZAC Joint Amphibious Task Force, so why not a Joint ANZAC Airlift Task Force ?

So for NZ a buy of A400m and C27 would cover and suffice for NZ national requirements and add capability above and beyond the Hercs.

The addition of the A400m to supplement the C17's of the RAAF for international responses and commitments, along with HADR would fill every contingency I think we could possibly come up against.

The addition of the C27 to the NZDF would open up a lot more of the country to HADR etc compared to the Herc's, and the supplemental effect combined with the RAAF C27's for regional deployments and HADR around SE Asia would be a very substantial increase in capability for both country's to offer the region

Thoughts ?

Cheers

 

[40 deg south]

White Paper Update

The Defence Ministry website has a couple of updates.

Defence Review - Defence White Paper [Ministry of Defence NZ]

The TOR for the White paper has been released,providing a bit of guidance about process and responsibilities. One new point is that only a draft White paper will go to the Minister this year, the time line must be a but tight to get a final version agreed upon.

Defence Review - Defence White Paper [Ministry of Defence NZ]

The programme of public meetings has been released, running from late May to mid-June. Bugger it - looks as if I will be out of the country when the circus comes to my town. Hope some of the other Kiwis on here can turn up and report back.

 

[40 deg south]

This was also released a short time ago. One of the things revealed in the TOR is that an advisory panel is being set up to suport the White Paper process. It will be made up of a former DefMin, a retired admiral and two corporate types, one (Haines) reputedly with strong IT background.

Defence White Paper advisory panel announced

Published By Foreign Affairs Publisher / May 18, 2015 / Comments Off on Defence White Paper advisory panel announced
Share Print Email

MIL OSI –

Source: New Zealand Government – Press Release/Statement:

Headline: Defence White Paper advisory panel announced

Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee has today announced the appointment of the independent panel which will advise him on the Defence White Paper 2015.

This follows the announcement on 5 May that the public would have the opportunity to provide their views on the White Paper.

The four members of the Panel are:

Mr Brian Roche, Chairperson of the Advisory Panel and Chief Executive Officer of the NZ Post Group
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp, a Member of the Law Commission and former Minister of Defence
Mrs Corinne Haines, Managing Director of Trimble Navigation New Zealand Ltd
Rear Admiral (Retired) David Ledson, Chair of Maritime New Zealand and of the National War Memorial Advisory Committee and a former Chief of Navy

“I’m pleased to have assembled this experienced and qualified panel that bring to the White Paper a range of highly relevant skills covering the business, political, defence, and organisational areas,” Mr Brownlee says.

“The panel will critically evaluate the options and recommendations coming out of the White Paper process and provide me with their views.

“They will also provide the independent assurance I need to have confidence in the White Paper when it is given to me at the end of this year by Defence officials.”

The Advisory Panel will also be able to advise the Minister on White Paper matters which he may request them to consider.

– –
- See more at: Defence White Paper advisory panel announced « ForeignAffairs.co.nz

 

[ngatimozart]

I won't be making an oral submission because mine won't be ready by 25th May and I am not going to rush it. I may turn up though to have a nosy just to get a feel of what's being said and how much interest there is.

 

[ngatimozart]

Budget announcement

Government continues to back NZ armed forces

New operating funding of $264 million over four years for the New Zealand Defence Force continues the Government’s commitment to deliver long-term funding certainty to our armed forces.

“Budget 2015 confirms that investment in the New Zealand Defence Force remains a priority,” Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee says.

The Defence Mid-Point Rebalancing Review (DMRR) in 2013 considered and valued defence priorities and costed all elements of defence capability out to 2029/30.

The Government then backed an indicative funding track to ensure investment matched expectations of both the Government and the public.

Budget 2015 includes $46.5 million in new operating funding as well as $106 million in capital from NZDF’s balance sheet for new equipment. This investment is aimed at enhancing soldiers’ safety on the battlefield.

“This funding allows the Defence Force to concurrently undertake domestic, regional and international security tasks, giving it greater flexibility in the response options it can provide to the Government as we react to changes in the security environment,” Mr Brownlee says.

Budget 2015 also includes $192 million of operational funding, recommended in the recent DMRR, and $25.4 million toward the cost of the two-year Building Partner Capacity mission to train the Iraqi Defence Force.

In addition, new contingency funding of $56.3 million over the next four years is provided for new military procurement projects, contingent on Cabinet approval.

Meanwhile, Budget 2015 confirms the Ministry of Defence will receive new operating funding of $27.1 million over four years.

“To deliver on the outcomes of the Defence Mid-Point Rebalancing Review, the Government has signalled an intention to replace billions of dollars’ worth of equipment over the next 15 years.

“Work since the Review has confirmed that a number of changes to capability procurement are needed to stay on top of a large programme plan that includes increasingly sophisticated capabilities and equipment.

“The extra funding will ensure New Zealand buys equipment that is fit for its needs, and acquires it on time, to budget, and to the specifications the Government has agreed,” Mr Brownlee says.
beehive.govt.nz - Government continues to back NZ armed forces

Haven't found the 2015/16 budget figures yet.

ADDITION. Found the figures here It is a 43 page pdf file that gives the expenditure breakdown. I've only flicked through it and at first glance there only appears to be a $50 million increase in the overall budget.

 

[40 deg south]

Haven't found the 2015/16 budget figures yet.

ADDITION. Found the figures here It is a 43 page pdf file that gives the expenditure breakdown. I've only flicked through it and at first glance there only appears to be a $50 million increase in the overall budget.

Thanks for the links, Ngati. Lots of info there, some of which I struggle to get my head around.

beehive.govt.nz - Government continues to back NZ armed forces

The initial release is badly written, either by accident or design. Very hard to see how the different figures relate. The headline figure is $264 million over 4 years, which is $66 million per year. I assume that will be the sum total of all the changes, as any government wants to make its budget decisions look as generous as possible.

I'd ignore the $106 million figure as it appears to be saving from within Vote Defence being shifted around, rather than new money.

$25 million over two years is for the Iraq training mission, so not related to any new capability. Good to see is is not having to be funded from internal savings.

The final 4 paras of the release appear to relate to the MoD, which receives $27.1 million over 4 years, or $6.7 million/year. The explanation is that it relates to procurement capability - good news if accurate.

I'll save the 40 page PDF for when I have more time. One point from a quick skim is that it is littered with references to the DMRR - the government is clearly sticking closely to the funding track identified there. Which is good news when you consider the alternatives.

Overall, while not a lolly scramble, Defence will probably be pleased with a modest increase and promises of more to follow in following years.

 

[40 deg south]

http://www.defence.govt.nz/defence-policy/dwp2015/dwp2015-presentation.pdf

This is a PDF of the powerpoint presentation that will be shown at the public meetings. Handy for those of us who won't be able to make it, but I can't see anything that hasn't previously been released in the consultation documents.

 

[ngatimozart]

2015 DWP Submissions

One submission for the DWP by someone known as The Lens Of History aka Luke Herbert. He lists on a well known kiwi aviation forum and on Kiwi Blog. Apart from that don't know anything about him. His submission as posted on his blog makes for interesting reading. However I have trouble reconciling parts of his submission with what is known and available in the open source literature. For instance he claims that the US would sit out a Russian armed confrontation with NATO and that Russia would reoccupy the Baltic States. I also think he proposes a disjointed force structure for NZDF and there are other parts that I have issues with.

 

[kiwi in exile]

One submission for the DWP by someone known as The Lens Of History aka Luke Herbert. He lists on a well known kiwi aviation forum and on Kiwi Blog. Apart from that don't know anything about him. His submission as posted on his blog makes for interesting reading. However I have trouble reconciling parts of his submission with what is known and available in the open source literature. For instance he claims that the US would sit out a Russian armed confrontation with NATO and that Russia would reoccupy the Baltic States. I also think he proposes a disjointed force structure for NZDF and there are other parts that I have issues with.

Yea 'interesting' definately, in a fiction kinda way. Lots of conflict predicted. Prepare for China invading the pacific. No mention of cyber threats which play a big part in the strategic assessment doc the Govt has released. His general conclusion is pretty apocalyptic:

General Conclusions

A number of global hotspots are going to flare up into a fire storm. The fire storm will be global conflict on a scale not seen since WW2. The scale of the coming conflict will mean that New Zealand will be fighting for the survival of western civilisation.

also 6 frigates, amphibious tanks, and apparently "the RNZAF combat wing is to be resurrected"

 

[t68]

One submission for the DWP by someone known as The Lens Of History aka Luke Herbert. He lists on a well known kiwi aviation forum and on Kiwi Blog. Apart from that don't know anything about him. His submission as posted on his blog makes for interesting reading. However I have trouble reconciling parts of his submission with what is known and available in the open source literature. For instance he claims that the US would sit out a Russian armed confrontation with NATO and that Russia would reoccupy the Baltic States. I also think he proposes a disjointed force structure for NZDF and there are other parts that I have issues with.

His crystal ball seems to be working overtime, US retreating into*isolationism can't see that happening, they may have to reduce their level of exposure to some events as we have seen with ET and Libya but I agree with what they are doing fiscal reality will se to that.

I agree that*Islamic extremism will continue to grow before it gets better only solution to that is a full fledged commitment from the ME countries with a substantial level of boots on the ground with a heavy ISR support from the West.

Capability of the NZDF that's a tough one, NZ faces no direct threat but the strategic guidence for the NZDF is the overriding document of your intensions.*
The*Joint Amphibious Task Force *is the core element in the NZ Defence Force’s grand strategic plan, which the emphasis will be placers on Navy and Army and AirForce.

The current structure of NZDf is capable enough for low- to mid intensity mission with 2x Frigates, 1x oiler, Specops a small but rotatable mechanised infantry group Artillery plus the logistics to support that with Hercules and NH-90 utilty helicopters. *But the underlying factor which must be face, is it enough?

*East Timor has shown that NZ needs a four frigate navy to maintain two frigates on station at any one time, and this is now of more importance than once you stand up a JATF, we have all heard of about the indoneasions submarines following the task group, East Timor showed that possessing*high-end capabilities*sends a very clear message of your intent and**the strategic circumstances and you willingness to use that capabilty can influence the outcome for better or worse and which was one of the underling factors for which Interfet had a favourable outcome, Interfet had range of capabilty at its disposal was one of the factors in its outcome, NZ at the time possessed a credible layered force that can influence decision making at the the table*

 

[40 deg south]

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/dwp2015/dwp-public-consultation-document-final.pdf

How to write a public submission

First of all, yes, you really should write one. The simple fact that you are reading this site means you are better-informed about defence matters than 99% of the NZ population. Rest assured that people who know and care far less than you about NZ's defence will make submissions, so why shouldn't you?.

There are two pages of questions the government is asking at the end of the linked PDF. A slow typist like me could probably knock them off and lodge the resulting (basic) submission in half an hour, so lack of time isn't a good excuse!

Over my years of reading and summarising submissions on non-defence matters for various government departments, I have a few tips on writing a good submission.

1) Decide what your main points are, and set them out clearly in a logical order

2) Look at the questions the government is asking, and respond if you have something to say. Skip the ones where you have nothing to contribute, and move onto topics you think should be addressed.

2) Write clearly and concisely - you aren't working on a novel. Simple language is best.

3) Use headings and sub-headings if necessary - they make it easier for readers to keep track of your points

4) Talk about capabilities and outcomes, not specific pieces of kit.

5) Acknowledge financial realities - the Crown budget isn't unlimited. If you think spending on a certain area should be increased, state why that will benefit New Zealand

6) Don't bother insulting politicians and officials - it won't help convince them that your views are worth listening to.

7) After you've written it, set it aside for a few hours or days. Re-read it with a fresh eye and check that it still makes sense! Remember that is available under the OIA, so anyone could end up reading it.

8) Submit it by 22 June, and pour yourself a congratulatory beverage. You've earned it!

 

[40 deg south]

What happens to submissions

To avoid excessive length, I'll make this a separate post to the preceding one. Note that I have no personal knowledge of how MinDef handles submissions, but the following is true of most NZ Government Departments.

Depending on volumes, one or two fairly junior policy analysts under the guidance of a team leader will be tasked with collating and analysing submissions. They will pile them in a paper or electronic heap until submissions close.

The analysts will set up an Excel spreadsheet (or similar) with headings based on the questions the government is asking. The spreadsheet will also have columns labelled something like 'Additional points' where other matters you raise can be listed.

There will probably also be a column titled 'Submitter background' or similar, where relevant info can be briefly noted; e.g. 'Retired NZDF officer', 'Chairman of Pacifist Union' or 'Raving lunatic'.

Generally, they will reduce each submission to a number of key points for entry on the spreadsheet. Then some basic numerical analysis is done, generally based around the questions the government is asking. For example, Question 1 is "What are the major threats or challenges to New Zealand's security?" The summary analysis would list the issues most frequently raised and what percentage of submissisons raise them, e.g. "Inter-state conflict in Asia 53%, Pacific Island stabilisation 40%, Natural disasters 29%, Climate change 19%" etc.

Then the analysts will try to boil the whole mass of submissions down to a couple of pages of descriptive text - "Submitters generally supported increased defence spending (65%) with a minority (30%) calling for decreased military spending and commensurate increase in the NZ aid budget"

The Analysis of Submissions containing all of the above is the document that senior officials and officers would read, rather than them ploughing through the entire set of submissions. And this is the information that will be presented to the Minister, and in summary form to Cabinet.

Sadly, neither the Minister nor the CDF are ever likely to see your carefully-polished prose. This is why it is important not to waste time on literary flourishes, but to focus on making your key points in a way that can easily be captured.

 

[Todjaeger]

One additional point that 40 degree did not bring up.

It might be helpful to have a second (or third, fourth, etc.) pair of eyes look over a submission, prior to it being sent in. This is above and beyond setting the submission down for a few hours or days before taking a second look at it.

I would be happy (since my submitting an entry would be a waste of effort) to look over the work of others to help them 'polish' their submissions. PM me if interested.

 

[ngatimozart]

Joint NZ - UK Defence Cooperation Statement

A joint statement by the Def Mins of NZ and UK has been made at latest Shangri La meeting in Singapore.

Joint Statement on Defence Cooperation between the United Kingdom and New Zealand
1. The close relationship between the defence institutions of the United Kingdom and New Zealand is broad, deep, and enduring, based on a shared history and a commitment to global peace and stability. We have common values and interests in our defence policies, and common approaches to defence and security issues.

2. Our long-term intent is to continue, promote and strengthen bilateral defence cooperation. We want to enhance the practical defence and security cooperation activities that already exist between us. A deepening relationship provides mutual benefits. It contributes to improved international relations, strengthens our overall bilateral relationship, and enhances peace, stability, cooperation, and development.

3. To facilitate bilateral defence cooperation, we will:
a. identify a clear set of priorities for bilateral defence engagement;
b. conduct regular high-level defence visits and exchanges;
c. hold an annual defence policy dialogue between the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, the New Zealand Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force that will guide and inform associated Navy-to-Navy, Army-to-Army, and Air Force-to-Air Force talks.

4. We intend to continue to work together in the following areas:
a. Exchange views to enhance mutual understanding of common defence issues.
b. Share information on defence policy and reform to enhance organisational performance.
c. Share information and ideas to identify future defence cooperation opportunities.
d. Cooperate on capability development to maximise opportunities to foster interoperability and seek value for money.
e. Cooperate on training and exercising.
f. Cooperate to enhance security and stability, especially in the Asia-Pacific region.
g. Continue to invest in the exchange of personnel to build capability, understanding, and interoperability.


For the Government of New Zealand

Gerry Brownlee
Minister of Defence


For the Government of the United Kingdom

Michael Fallon MP
Secretary of State for Defence
UK-NZ Joint Statement on Defence Cooperation [Ministry of Defence NZ]

There appears to be a very deliberate policy to align with the UK in defence related issues especially with regard equipment, that maybe politically acceptable and easier to get past certain elements in NZ society. This does cause me to ponder upon the logistical wisdom of having weapons and equipment that will require NZ to carry significant war stocks, rather than the logic of using US weapons. Given the history of NZGs inability to willingly invest in sufficient supplies of spares, stores etc., the belief of them now investing in war stocks appears to me to be somewhat beyond the pale. I have far greater belief in the proposition that sailors, soldiers and airmen will forswear from the vices of alcohol, swearing, gambling and loose women (and / or men)

 

[t68]

A joint statement by the Def Mins of NZ and UK has been made at latest Shangri La meeting in Singapore.

There appears to be a very deliberate policy to align with the UK in defence related issues especially with regard equipment, that maybe politically acceptable and easier to get past certain elements in NZ society. This does cause me to ponder upon the logistical wisdom of having weapons and equipment that will require NZ to carry significant war stocks, rather than the logic of using US weapons. Given the history of NZGs inability to willingly invest in sufficient supplies of spares, stores etc., the belief of them now investing in war stocks appears to me to be somewhat beyond the pale. I have far greater belief in the proposition that sailors, soldiers and airmen will forswear from the vices of alcohol, swearing, gambling and loose women (and / or men)

Not sure if it's a big issue after all from memory your Medium and Heavy Operational Vehicles were tacked on to the end of the UK run and hopefully you will replace the SOC Pinz withe Jackal, which will be comparable with UKDF and ADF,
Don't think it would that bigger deal if the UK build your OPV and Anzac replacements.

On the subject of on hand war stocks is no diffrent if they come from the UK or USA, but plugging into your most likly partner would have major benifits, who do you see your most likly partner nation would be besides Australia?

 

[ngatimozart]

Not sure if it's a big issue after all from memory your Medium and Heavy Operational Vehicles were tacked on to the end of the UK run and hopefully you will replace the SOC Pinz withe Jackal, which will be comparable with UKDF and ADF,
Don't think it would that bigger deal if the UK build your OPV and Anzac replacements.

On the subject of on hand war stocks is no diffrent if they come from the UK or USA, but plugging into your most likly partner would have major benifits, who do you see your most likly partner nation would be besides Australia?

Well I was thinking purely in logistics and geography. If we sourced most of our weapons systems either from the US, or were supported by the US and used US based or supported consumables then we could theoretically tap into the likes of the USN logistics train. Whereas if it's European based and centred then we have to source that independently and arrange logistics from Europe. The ADF have lots of nice experience of European logistics

 

[kiwi in exile]

A joint statement by the Def Mins of NZ and UK has been made at latest Shangri La meeting in Singapore.

There appears to be a very deliberate policy to align with the UK in defence related issues especially with regard equipment, that maybe politically acceptable and easier to get past certain elements in NZ society. This does cause me to ponder upon the logistical wisdom of having weapons and equipment that will require NZ to carry significant war stocks, rather than the logic of using US weapons. Given the history of NZGs inability to willingly invest in sufficient supplies of spares, stores etc., the belief of them now investing in war stocks appears to me to be somewhat beyond the pale. I have far greater belief in the proposition that sailors, soldiers and airmen will forswear from the vices of alcohol, swearing, gambling and loose women (and / or men)

Wouldn't stress too much. This statement does not mean we are 'locked in' to buying what the Brits buy. Only that we will try and work with them if and when it suits us. Likewise, despite the global reach of the US military and supply chains etc, it will not always suit us to buy stuff off them.

 

[kiwi in exile]

New DTR is out

Defence Technology Review : DTR JUN 2015, Page 1

of interest to NZ readers:

Norways getting supacats too.
Discussion of future Aust OPVs (remember talk of us getting a third, LWSS canditates?).
More discussion of LAND 400 (potentially relevant to future NZ LAV upgrades).
Discussion of potental options for mounting an ATGM to LAND 400 vehicles (MBDA MMP is interesting).
Brazils OPVs getting a 40mm gun.

 

[40 deg south]

Wouldn't stress too much. This statement does not mean we are 'locked in' to buying what the Brits buy. Only that we will try and work with them if and when it suits us. Likewise, despite the global reach of the US military and supply chains etc, it will not always suit us to buy stuff off them.

In 2012 NZ also signed an agreement aimed at improving defence ties with the US - the Washington Declaration.
NZEmbassy.com
Text here.
http://www.defense.gov/news/WashingtonDeclaration.pdf

More focus on humanitarian work and maratime patrol than the UK equivalent, possibly because of more scope for overlapping operations in the Pacific than we have with the UK.

 

[40 deg south]

When the Air Force Skyhawk fighters were scrapped in 2000 the Government was advised to focus on the army because it was cheaper and less technologically complex.

It led to a decision which inspired two decades of simmering jealousies within both the Navy and the Air Force and is now being questioned in the Government’s Defence Review on which public consultations have begun...

THE REAL REASON THE ARMY WON OUR DEFENCE BATTLE --- AND WHY IT MAY SOON HAVE TO RETREAT | Politik

Short piece from the Politik website run by Richard Harman, former political reporter for TVNZ.