NZDF General discussion thread

[DDG38]

Sorry for my lack of clarity, but I was specifically referring to how long Australia has been continuously operating subs. Given that the RAN had subs in service previously, but with extended breaks in that service, I was not going to include when AE1 & AE2 etc. had been in service.

Yep sometimes a bit of clarity goes a long way. Anyway, regardless of the time frame, the RAN has struggled hard to maintain a sub fleet. To be honest, given the current political and economic issues facing New Zealand at the moment, discussion of the RNZN buying SSKs and the requisite personnel knowledge and support base seems to be well and truly in fantasy fleet land.

 

[Rob c]

To put it another way, if the RNZN was a sub-only force, then the NZDF would have no ability to deploy troops by sea except via STUFT and/or chartered vessels and also no ability to escort other vessels or provide maritime security. A sub is not going to surface to conduct a boarding op on a suspected illegal fishing or smuggling vessel, whilst an OPV or even warship could do so. Same goes for providing a merchantmen an escorting presence if/when it needs to transit threatened waters like off the coast of Yemen.

In the mid 1980's the plan to replace the Leanders had two final options, 1. involved a frigate replacement which evolved into the ANZAC's, was meant to be 4 originally, the other was for 4 submarines, supported by 4 opv's. The opv of choice at that time was the castle class. The cost factor for the sub option was considered to be too high due to the added cost of the opv's and frigates was the chosen option.

 

[Bevan]

NZ Budget released today and in among all the usual commentary I see this little line: Defence gets a $80m boost, including increased pay for personnel, as well as more vehicles, helicopters and infrastructure.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

Ive looked and looked, but cant find anything more detailed - does anyone know what vehicles and helicopters? Would think $80M is not going to buy too much so might just be to manage the procurement/go to market..

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Ive looked and looked, but cant find anything more detailed - does anyone know what vehicles and helicopters? Would think $80M is not going to buy too much so might just be to manage the procurement/go to market..

Will be pay and housing buildings,... no equipment until the release of the next DCP

 

[pea032]

Its a bit confusing, but reading the various press releases

From Nicola Willis speech - "As previously announced, the Budget also provides $571 million for Defence Force pay and projects, including $99 million of reprioritisation. A portion of this additional funding will increase remuneration for New Zealand Defence Force personnel and the rest will go towards upgrading equipment and infrastructure."

Chris Bishop - '$408 million to upgrade Defence equipment and infrastructure'

So looks like $163m for remuneration increases? cant see anything about helicopters anywhere

 

[Gibbo]

Its a bit confusing, but reading the various press releases

From Nicola Willis speech - "As previously announced, the Budget also provides $571 million for Defence Force pay and projects, including $99 million of reprioritisation. A portion of this additional funding will increase remuneration for New Zealand Defence Force personnel and the rest will go towards upgrading equipment and infrastructure."

Chris Bishop - '$408 million to upgrade Defence equipment and infrastructure'

So looks like $163m for remuneration increases? cant see anything about helicopters anywhere

Helicopters will be under the '...to upgrade Defence equipment and infrastructure' category, no new choppers to come, it;s upgrades to NH-90 that's planned.

 

[RegR]

NZ Budget released today and in among all the usual commentary I see this little line: Defence gets a $80m boost, including increased pay for personnel, as well as more vehicles, helicopters and infrastructure.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

Ive looked and looked, but cant find anything more detailed - does anyone know what vehicles and helicopters? Would think $80M is not going to buy too much so might just be to manage the procurement/go to market..

Remaining pinzgauer and unimog replacements and NH90 upgrades to keep them current and deployable.

 

[chis73]

As per normal, we have to rely on overseas media for competent coverage: here's the true story on the defence budget from Janes

New Zealand decreases defence budget by 20%

Here is the statement from Minister Collins (released 10 May) on the $571m spending package (link). Note that this is spread over 4 years, still subject to Cabinet approval (and therefore not in the released budget documents as far as I can tell), includes $99m in savings (so therefore only $471m in reality), and finally includes money to lease (not build) 35 homes in Devonport - homes that until John Key gave them away the Defence Force probably owned. In other words, this defence budget is a complete farce. Just yet another case of NPTS (National Party Tight-arse Syndrome a.k.a. Bill English Disease) - although it seems they are willing to spend a quarter-million towards Mr English's company on the strength of a text message.

Also, absolutely no progress on any of the pressing major equipment projects (Seasprite helicopter replacement, frigate replacements for example). It's now been 4 years since any major project work has been moved forward. The RFI on the Seasprite replacement was issued over a year ago.

At least we can now finally reveal what was in Monty Python's deadliest joke all those years ago - "Chris Luxon wants NZ to join AUKUS".

Some new trucks - that'll send the wind up the Chinese. Ha ha, bloody ha!

I have no confidence that whatever is in the new Capability Plan (due to be released this month) it will result in any positive action.

 

[recce.k1]

Hmmm some things don't seem right with that Janes article.

Like since when ever has NZ spent over NZD $7b on defence? Google any other articles on NZ defence expenditure for 2023 and it has been 1-2b less than that. The recent Reuters article discussed here recently claimed a 6.6% decrease (not 20%), partly explained by the lack of major capital projects being approved 2020-2023 (eg Southern OPV deferment etc).

Then a similar Janes article (by the same authors oddly enough) from 2023 shows lower defence spending overall over the last few years in direct comparision to the same info they present in their 2024 article.

And also the 2023 article projected higher figures from 2024 onwards, whereas the 2024 article now shows the projections dropping.

So why the differences between 2023 and 2024? Their graph(s) show $USD so wondering if changes in USD-NZD exchange rates (and any recalculations) may help explain some of the discrepencies? Eg 1 NZD has fluculated between 0.58-0.63 USD over the last few months.

 

[recce.k1]

Out of interest the Vote Defence Force Budget 2024/25 documents now show 2023/24 final budgeted and estimated actual, in addition to the 2024/25 budget figures.

Which means one can do like-for-like comparisons (rather than re-interpret previous Vote budget documents). For example here are the 2023/24 and 2022/23 docs for NZDF (the MoD and project budgets are separate - search for "Vote Defence").

 

[chis73]

Like since when ever has NZ spent over NZD $7b on defence?

Try last year! Recce, as far I can see the numbers in the Jane's article stack up. They claim a final budgeted expenditure of NZD 7.37bn for 2023/24.

2023/24 budgeted expenditure, from the 2024/25 budget documents released on 30 May:

Vote Defence Force (see p. 47)
5.289b Total Annual Appropriations and Forecast Permanent Appropriations and Multi-Year Appropriations
+0.750b Capital Injection

Vote Defence (see p. 27)
1.327b Total Annual Appropriations and Forecast Permanent Appropriations

Total = 7.37b (rounding up)

Estimated Actual spending was 7.15b (after the cutbacks/savings drive)

I would agree that you are playing with fire trying to compare the two graphs from two different years (welcome to the dark arts of statistics!). Both have converted NZD to USD at different (unstated) rates. What is important is the relative year-to-year values within each graph, not the actual numbers per se. I would presume there is no inflation adjustment either.

 

[Bevan]

Try last year! Recce, as far I can see the numbers in the Jane's article stack up. They claim a final budgeted expenditure of NZD 7.37bn for 2023/24.

You do realise last years budget would have included the funds to procure items like the P-8s and C-130s right? If there are no capital purchases, then there will be no funding. As far as I know the last government didn't hand over any new procurement which would have been funded in this budget. I doubt any new government that came out and announced new capital purchases after being in for 7 months would be making rational decisions.

 

[Rob c]

Don't forget the capital charge, which is money in the budget which goes straight back to the government.
In 2022 the budget was $US 2.83B by using the NATO standard method of calculation. in current values that would be $NZ 4.6B.
I prefer the NATO method as it eliminates treasury trickery.
On top of this they are also charged depreciation, which also sicks more out of the budget which defence never see's
I remember reading back in the 1990's of a report by treasury on the question of the capital charge in which they admitted that it was not a good fit for defence, but they went ahead anyway as it was consistent with what other departments had to do.
I remember doing the calculations some 10 to 15 years ago for depreciation and capital charge over a 5 year period. It consistently was between 40% and 45% of the budget.

 

[recce.k1]

Try last year! Recce, as far I can see the numbers in the Jane's article stack up. They claim a final budgeted expenditure of NZD 7.37bn for 2023/24.

Hmmm that Janes link now brings up a 404 error for me!

Happy to be corrected but my understanding of Capital Injections (in NZDF context) means in simple terms capital funding as per White Paper or Defence Capability Plan projects (funding) approved by Cabinet. It can both be new funding (approvals) in a new budget year, and be in addition to previous budget years funding approvals (i.e. on-going projects in motion). Giving a higher figure (such as the $ 0.75b you refer to).

But Capital Injections (which can have a separate entry in the Vote Defence/Force tables) form part of the overall Capital Expenditure listed elsewhere in the tables (sometimes without any easily understood breakdown).

And if that isn't confusing enough, both Vote Defence (MoD) and Vote Defence Force (NZDF) count Capital Expenditure twice (and if that isn't confusing sometimes the two figures they both use can be slightly different).

So perhaps Janes did that?

Former DefMin Wayne Mapp discusses this double up of Capital Expenditure.

The 2022 budget continued defence expenditure at 1.5 percent of GDP, made up of approximately $3 billion in operating costs and $1.5 billion in capital costs. The capital expenditure appears in both Vote Defence Force and Vote Defence (MOD), but it seems to a single block of expenditure.

So I don't think NZDF spent $7b last year (unfortunately).

If we look at the 2023/2024 Vote DF doc page 316:
Total Annual Appropriations and Forecast Permanent Appropriations 5,156,824 (11,535) 5,145,289
The last figure is total budget for 23/24.

Then 2024/25 Vote DF page 46:
Total Annual Appropriations and Forecast Permanent Appropriations 5,145,289 5,126,871 4,819,199
The first figure is 23/24 final budget (exact match with above) and the last figure is the 24/25 budget figure.

Which roughly is a 6.3% reduction. Which is very close to the recent Reuters article figure.

If so Reuters 1 v Janes 0?

Oh Sweet Jane! (Nevermind that'll make up for it)!

 

[Catalina]

1. If Russia strikes Ukrainian F-16s positioned on airbases in Poland or Romania, is Article 5 invoked and NATO, including the United Kingdom, then at war with Russia?

2. Given the depth of feeling expressed across the nation regarding the recent D-Day commemorations, are the people of New Zealand, and is our NZDF, ready to support the United Kingdom and NATO in war against Russia, potentially as early as next month?

 

[Rob c]

2. Are the people of New Zealand, and is our NZDF, ready to support the United Kingdom and NATO at war against Russia, potentially as early as next month?

Simple answer is no. The people in general in NZ seem to have lost interest in the war and the news coverage is only sporadic and they see this as being far away and the cost of living being more important. A recent poll published in my paper on what was important to people did not feature Ukraine at all. The NZDF is in no condition to to have any significant role in a combat area due to continued under funding during the 21st century. Any involvement would only be symbolic at the best.

 

[swerve]

1. If Russia strikes Ukrainian F-16s positioned on airbases in Poland or Romania, is Article 5 invoked and NATO, including the United Kingdom, then at war with Russia?

Probably yes. An attack on NATO territory is, under the NATO treaty, an attack on NATO - though going to war over it is not required by the treaty.

If Ukrainian F-16s were operating from airbases in NATO countries against Russia, or Russian forces in Ukraine, then it'd be hard to justify NATO as a whole going to war against Russia. If they were on NATO airbases for repair, or training, or any other purpose than operating against Russian forces, I think it'd be very likely that NATO countries would consider it a casus belli.

 

[swerve]

Don't forget the capital charge, which is money in the budget which goes straight back to the government.
In 2022 the budget was $US 2.83B by using the NATO standard method of calculation. in current values that would be $NZ 4.6B.
I prefer the NATO method as it eliminates treasury trickery.
On top of this they are also charged depreciation, which also sicks more out of the budget which defence never see's
I remember reading back in the 1990's of a report by treasury on the question of the capital charge in which they admitted that it was not a good fit for defence, but they went ahead anyway as it was consistent with what other departments had to do.
I remember doing the calculations some 10 to 15 years ago for depreciation and capital charge over a 5 year period. It consistently was between 40% and 45% of the budget.

"the question of the capital charge in which they admitted that it was not a good fit for defence"
This has been pointed out in the UK, when equipment has been scrapped although storage would be cheaper, because keeping it would incur capital charges. It's blindingly obvious that armed forces can't work on just in time logistics. They need stockpiles, & reserves, ready for when they go into action.

 

[spoz]

Probably yes. An attack on NATO territory is, under the NATO treaty, an attack on NATO - though going to war over it is not required by the treaty.

If Ukrainian F-16s were operating from airbases in NATO countries against Russia, or Russian forces in Ukraine, then it'd be hard to justify NATO as a whole going to war against Russia. If they were on NATO airbases for repair, or training, or any other purpose than operating against Russian forces, I think it'd be very likely that NATO countries would consider it a casus belli.

Arguably, at least, if Ukrainian aircraft were operating against Russia from Poland then they would be legitimate targets in Poland under the doctrine of “hot pursuit”; and therefore in international law would not be a legitimate cases belli.

But for non-NATO members such as NZ, whatever NATO chose to do, while it might influence their decisions, it would not necessarily cause them to be the same. For a country not bound by a treaty to become involved would in fact be difficult to justify under the UN self defence clause.

 

[swerve]

Arguably, at least, if Ukrainian aircraft were operating against Russia from Poland then they would be legitimate targets in Poland under the doctrine of “hot pursuit”; and therefore in international law would not be a legitimate cases belli.
...

I'd say indisputably, not arguably. Allowing armed aircraft to take off from your country to fight against another country is act of war.

But that shouldn't apply when, for example, they take off in Ukraine, unarmed, & fly to a country which is not at war with Russia for something non-combat, such as a software update.