Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
A rumor is she was heard saying that if she was every in the position she would get rid of the skyhawks... She was also one of the protestors when they arrived...
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Just a follow up on the RNZ article from last Friday - audio now available with extended interviews in the Focus on Politics podcast (16 min)
Focus on Politics for 25 June 2021
Regarding the Army: I think the main reason for the 6000-person army policy is that NZ Army can no longer rely on the Reserves to seriously support them (a la East Timor), coupled with the likelihood that it is also the service cheapest to fix. The Reserves have already been cannibalized by the Army brass to offset prior budget cuts. We should have a minimum of 3 infantry battalions to ensure that we can at least sustain one on deployment. I would agree with Paul Buchanan that the army shouldn't be the dominant portion of the NZDF (which sadly, funding-wise, it still is*).
* I view the current air force funding (which now rivals the army funding) as exceptional
Focus on Politics for 25 June 2021
Regarding the Army: I think the main reason for the 6000-person army policy is that NZ Army can no longer rely on the Reserves to seriously support them (a la East Timor), coupled with the likelihood that it is also the service cheapest to fix. The Reserves have already been cannibalized by the Army brass to offset prior budget cuts. We should have a minimum of 3 infantry battalions to ensure that we can at least sustain one on deployment. I would agree with Paul Buchanan that the army shouldn't be the dominant portion of the NZDF (which sadly, funding-wise, it still is*).
* I view the current air force funding (which now rivals the army funding) as exceptional
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Nicely expressed succinctly and to the point i.e. having enough personnel to be able to sustain Army operations but that for a maritime nation the Army shouldn't be dominant.
Which is why I was saying over the weekend NZDF needs increased funding to boost Navy and Air Force (if/with Army at 6,000 personnel) ... as opposed to say the "easy" political/treasury option to decrease Army funding in order to redirect towards the Navy and Air Force in order to keep defence expenditure static (and I'm sure most of us wouldn't want that)!
How to make that point to politicians? As I'm sure they would say NZDF gets "plenty" of funding of approx NZ$3billion ... so what's the issue (us complainers)? Well NZDF Operational funding in 2020 was NZ$2.859 billion, and if we break that down that's $1.087b for Personnel expenses and $871m Operating expenses. But that's "only" 68% of the budget because the Capital Charge at $421m and Depreciation at $466m takes 31% of the budget! (See NZDF Annual Report 2020 page 80).
Is there a way to change the accounting method to take the likes of Capital Charge out (but keeping that portion of the funding pie for the NZDF)?
By the way the ADF's Defence Portfolio budget (2020/21) is incredibly comprehensive in terms of figures, stats and facts for all aspects of Defence funding (where as in NZ they appear in separate budget documents for NZDF, MoD, Veterans Affairs etc), and a quick glance also shows the ADF is charged Depreciation but I cannot see anything akin to Capital Charge (or perhaps I'm misreading it). See from page 72 for the breakdown of the Services, starting with the Navy).
I note some recent similarities made by the UK commentators here (re Capital Charge applying to aspects such as land and assets in reserve), is NZ Govt following a similar accounting system to the UK? Or is Australia different, if so, could we have our politicians look at this to standardise?
@ Mr C: Perhaps something to be brought to the attention of National's shadow defence spokesperson (Chris Penk) and Finance (Andrew Bayly)? Both are ex-NZDF and ADF and British Parachute Regiment respectively - I'm sure they would have a much greater interest in these matters than previous Ministers (let alone those in the current govt)!
Last edited:
I read a long and rambling article in the Manawatu standard today in regard to a attempt last year to get a free trade agreement with the US and buried in the page long article was the statement that one of the conditions the US put up was that NZ needed to increase its defence budget and take a stronger role in the South Pacific. It was mentioned that possibly the C130 and P 8 was part of this, but the timing seems out for the P 8 as this was ordered prior to the time frame of the article. Whether the author did have inside info or was just assuming I don't know, but an interesting thought none the less.
This is the link to the article:
Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
From my reading of it the US didn't attach conditions. Winston was the one who bought up NZ’s defence spending. Implications could be made from the comment that relations warmed after the P-8A and C-130J-30 acquisitions were confirmed. I would suggest that the current US Administration will put the pressure on NZ to increase its military spending because that was the Obama Administration's line with NZ, and the current Administration appears to be taking a similar position in that aspect.
Because an experienced old player like Winston unlike his political bed-fellows last term, knows that anything in the FTA sphere undertaken by the USTR gets looked through the national security lens by the multi-agency Committee on Foreign Investment within their Treasury department. Wily old Winston was signposting them.
On the National side there are more ex Defence people as MP's than for quite sometime (The Muldoon Cabinet even had two former Brigadiers and an Air Commodore answering to Corporal Muldoon
). Dr Shane Reti the Deputy Leader was a Territorial Officer, as was Tim van de Molen, and new MP's Penny Simmonds and Joseph Mooney the shadow Associate Spokesperson for Defence have also been in the Army Reserve / Territorials. That is quite a pro-defence cabal within the ranks which is a positive. If WCDR Tim Costley gives it another go in Otaki that would really be helpful. With the professional knowledge that Penk has from his Naval career and Bayly in charge of the purse strings, we could even turn a corner.Jeez All I can say is you blokes better keep on good terms with Chile, Peru, Tonga, Fiji and Tassie. On a serious note I suspect some bargain buying is coming with some ex AU choppers that could be show horned into your capability requirements. Hardly used. Only flown to church on Sundays.
Maybe Winston did. but his recent bust up with our ex Defence minister I think was due to him wanting to soften his party's defence policy and reduce spending. However the article I read, was somewhat larger than your reference and seemed to indicate that the increase in defence spending was first indicated to the trade Minister prior to Winston's involvement. Mind you Winston would always claim credit for anything irrespective of who actually did the job.
Last edited:
This is good BUT - National needs a leader that will unify the party and they need to find that person now.On the National side there are more ex Defence people as MP's than for quite sometime (The Muldoon Cabinet even had two former Brigadiers and an Air Commodore answering to Corporal Muldoon
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
You mean the MRH-90's (not the Tigers)? Might be too "Australianised" (modd'ed) for us?
What's the state of the (older) LARC-V Lighter, amphibious resupply cargo vehicles? (Which will be replaced under LAND 8710 Phase 1)?
Could it be worth the NZDF picking up a few in time to build up amphibious operations knowledge and for HADR use (and to complement the LCM's) ... assuming it's practical to modify/extend HMNZS Canterbury's rear ramp (and the sea-state is flat and calm)?
Or could be lowered/recovered via the cranes (assuming the LARC's have appropriate fitting points)?NgatiM. is right in saying NZDF needs more appropriate vehicles better suited to amphibious tasks ... although RNZN is hampered by not having a LHD or LPD with a stern well dock (to launch and recover such vehicles in a safe manner) ... NZDF will just have to wait a few more years for such a vessel (unless our "beloved and kind" politicians intervene). If such a vessel eventuates, for interoperability perhaps RNZN take a close look at the ADF's replacement for the LARC-V when that is decided upon.
Last edited:
When this years budget was announced nothing was said about the defence allotment by any of the opposition parties and at the time I thought what a wasted opportunity. Anyway with the revised DCP to be released hopefully soon, I hope National replies with a "full broadside"On the National side there are more ex Defence people as MP's than for quite sometime (The Muldoon Cabinet even had two former Brigadiers and an Air Commodore answering to Corporal Muldoon
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The LARC-Vs are 50 odd years old, I’m quite sure Australia would be happy to add a handful of the replacements to the order list for NZ to buy.You mean the MRH-90's (not the Tigers)? Might be too "Australianised" (modd'ed) for us?
What's the state of the (older) LARC-V Lighter, amphibious resupply cargo vehicles? (Which will be replaced under LAND 8710 Phase 1)?
Could it be worth the NZDF picking up a few in time to build up amphibious operations knowledge and for HADR use (and to complement the LCM's) ... assuming it's practical to modify/extend HMNZS Canterbury's rear ramp (and the sea-state is flat and calm)?
NgatiM. is right in saying NZDF needs more appropriate vehicles better suited to amphibious tasks ... although RNZN is hampered by not having a LHD or LPD with a stern well dock (to launch and recover such vehicles in a safe manner) ... NZDF will just have to wait a few more years for such a vessel (unless our "beloved and kind" politicians intervene). If such a vessel eventuates, for interoperability perhaps RNZN take a close look at the ADF's replacement for the LARC-V when that is decided upon.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Yes they are, but if they were used for training purposes by NZDF, and as long there are spares (or take on a few extra working vehicles which can be cannibalised) this is a low cost opportunity for Navy/Army to get some experience (eg at the "learning to swim" phase so-to-speak) and understand how these would fit into eg joint task force doctrine.
Something like this would be more practical, affordable and support is close by across the ditch (eg whilst the institutional knowledge remains in the ADF).
In parallel NZ should then take a keen interest in the ADF LAND 8710 replacement project, which for interoperability (training and deploying, even into the local Pacific area for HADR and peace enforcement tasks) should tie in with the proposed RNZN LPD project.
On another angle, reflecting on how Covid is disrupting global supply chains and thus exposing vulnerabilities, NZ Govt/NZDF/MoD/MFAT etc should be thinking about the fact that the ADF LAND 8710 project is looking at "Australian-designed and manufactured vehicles", meaning that on-going support (and developments/upgrades) is "across the ditch" (and not reliant from much further afar in the world, which is subject to disruption or non-availability because of border closures or conflict etc).
Could also be an opportunity for some NZ light industry to "tool up" and get involved with these Aust. Gov projects, or for local support etc.
In other words NZ needs to work closely with heavy industralised Australia, probably more than ever (as a result of this changing world), benefiting both sides, where practical, to ensure resilience.
Last edited:
Agree completely . Competitive costings for new acquisitions such as naval ships would need to be addressed. South Korea wins hands down at the moment but with the tensions in Asia there is always a calculated risk of losing a new build on the stocks. Aussie has our needs covered.
That's why I believe that WRT the Kiwi IFV it should include the Lance turret along with the Spike LR because the the turrets, 30mm ammo for the Rheinmettall guns and the Spike missiles will be manufacturers under licence in Australia. Makes a lot of sense forus to go that way because of commonality benefiting logistics.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The issue for Australia with the LARC-V replacement is, without a ready made production line to purchase from they are going to be relatively expensive in the numbers Australia requires so i could see a strong push for Export orders to try to get the cost per Vehicle down.
I could also see an Australian Government building and donating some to Pacific Islands as a way to keep a production line open.
I could also see an Australian Government building and donating some to Pacific Islands as a way to keep a production line open.
There is that and the argument could be that we could claw some of the costs back by ensuring NZ companies got some of the work, like they did with the ANZAC Class build. However WRT the Hunter Class build it's too late to insist on that because all of the contracts have been finalised and signed. The other point is that Australia has no reason to trust us anymore in a combined shipbuilding program.
Good point and such cooperation would be nice to see. Yep ... some folk are still a bit wary after the ANZAC work share for NZ was based on four frigates but the LARC-V replacements is not as big an issue and may actually attract other exports (potentially) if the project gets going before other options pop up and offer alternatives.
........... and yes, I may be too optimistic this will get going quickly but lots of things have surprized me recently.
KODAL 90DT - Navantia Australia
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I think Navantia are very well placed in both Land 8710 phase 1 projects. They already have a strong working relationship with the ADF. They have signed up with Rheinmetall for the LARC-V replacement so a production site is up and running, MILVECOE in Brisbane.