NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

DCP update.

Pushing the report until 2025 was because “things have got worse in the world” over the past year, the minister said, and time was needed “to get it right, because we’re looking at a significant investment over the years”.

Also:

Judith Collins has revealed the Defence Force's major spending blueprint release has been delayed until next year, citing escalating world tensions.

Speaking after appearing before a Select Committee this afternoon, the Defence Minister says the capability plan has been pushed back because she's taking the time to get things right.

Collins says there's more 'militarisation' efforts coming out of places like China - and it's unlike anything she's seen before.

"The recent Chinese Navy Renhai-class cruiser and destroyer visiting Port Vila, Vanuatu, in October this year - that's the first time we've seen ships of that capability in that position when they weren't just coming back from somewhere else and stopping off."

Pushing the report until 2025 was because “things have got worse in the world” over the past year, the minister said, and time was needed “to get it right, because we’re looking at a significant investment over the years”.

In the interview (and transcript) above the DefMin acknowledges the numerical advantage the PLA(N) has over the USN in the Pacific, the fact that the CCP are looking to build their 6th base in Antarctica and of concern the recent intercontinental ballistic missile launch into the South Pacific.

It's not a case of the Govt acting if nothing's wrong (although the Opposition appear to be doing a grand job digging sandpits to put their heads in them), it's more of a case in which the situation is constantly evolving and the Govt is needing to get a clearer perspective on these issues. Also I guess in hindsight if the DCP was released on time as originally planned it would have missed many of these new developments including the escalation in Ukraine, viz North Korean involvement etc.

So expectations are high that the DCP will cover these escalations, where practical, and work in with our allies again where practical.

Until then the biggest hurdle facing the NZDF right now, which the Govt needs to be pressured on in the immediate term (budget 2025) with maximum effort (otherwise the DefMin will duck and say it's an operational matter for the NZDF to contend with), is to increase baseline funding (additional hundreds of $M) to fix the operating deficit.

Whilst the Govt is correct to say they have invested hundreds of $M in budget 2024 for new spending and wages etc, the baseline operating budget does not appear to have been increased sufficiently enough to cope with the massive cost increases in ammunition, inflation pressures and the other supply chain cost increases etc. In the meantime the NZDF's civilian staff are being cut to save costs and no doubt this will have a negative effect on the organisation as a whole.

A special shout out needs to be given to the turkeys in Treasury, who whilst acknowledging the NZDF's baseline funding difficulties, have been instrumental in providing advice to Govt along the lines of "other agencies are experiencing similar cost pressures and are being expected to manage them within baselines in addition to meeting savings targets. We do not think NZDF should receive unique treatment in contravention of the invitation process".

Perhaps in response to the finance boffins, turkey's, chopping blocks and Christmases come to mind?

 

[Rob c]

It's not a case of the Govt acting if nothing's wrong (although the Opposition appear to be doing a grand job digging sandpits to put their heads in them), it's more of a case in which the situation is constantly evolving and the Govt is needing to get a clearer perspective on these issues. Also I guess in hindsight if the DCP was released on time as originally planned it would have missed many of these new developments including the escalation in Ukraine, viz North Korean involvement etc.

While the strategic situation has continued to evolve and in all probability this will continue, I have little faith that the delay is mainly because of this as the evolution will continue. the simple reality is that a lot should have and could have already have been done. The simple question of how do we defend NZ could have been answered long ago and addressed, retention should have been addressed long ago. These delays my view are simply a way of saving money and delaying and reducing any spending as much as possible.
We are not a great power and will have little influence on the world strategic situation so first and foremost we must look to our own defence and then regional defence. A start should have been made when things first started to get ugly, not continue to delay, saying the situation is changing as it will continue to change as time goes on.
This will inevitably mean that whatever is done, if anything will be to little to late.

 

[Bevan]

NZ governments of any colour/stripe will wait until a declaration of war is made before doing anything and then come up with all excuses under the sun as to why they havent done anything yet.

Proof will be in the pudding for the DCP delay, thinking Navy solely, if it comes down to replacing frigates and OPV like hull for like hull (ie: under armed), then the reason for their delay is a fallacy.

 

[John Fedup]

As much as a get frustrated with pollies, we all should remind ourselves who put them in office. Perhaps it is time for voters to be tested and if they pass a test, a voting license can be issued….of course current pollies will oppose this along with the content of the test for voting.

 

[jbc388]

While the strategic situation has continued to evolve and in all probability this will continue, I have little faith that the delay is mainly because of this as the evolution will continue. the simple reality is that a lot should have and could have already have been done. The simple question of how do we defend NZ could have been answered long ago and addressed, retention should have been addressed long ago. These delays my view are simply a way of saving money and delaying and reducing any spending as much as possible.
We are not a great power and will have little influence on the world strategic situation so first and foremost we must look to our own defence and then regional defence. A start should have been made when things first started to get ugly, not continue to delay, saying the situation is changing as it will continue to change as time goes on.
This will inevitably mean that whatever is done, if anything will be to little to late.

I agree with what you are saying the huge problem now lies with the present National led government "The Coalition of Spending Less"!!

 

[kiwi in exile]

It's not a case of the Govt acting if nothing's wrong (although the Opposition appear to be doing a grand job digging sandpits to put their heads in them), it's more of a case in which the situation is constantly evolving and the Govt is needing to get a clearer perspective on these issues.

Its a bit rich to criticise the opposition and treasury and state that National are being sensibly cautious. The current govt, through cuts and inaction on developing and delivering strategy and capability is the one doing the damage now. NZDF will not be treated any different from any other area of public service that isn't geared towards profit/has effective lobbyists. I agree with Rob C- a lot could have and shoild have allready been done and the pause is probably to see what we can get away with not doing/spending. Both sides of politics have been guilty of this, but the Nats wear the responibility for this currently. But its worse now because our equipment is older and the geopolitical situation is ... evolving...

What was nationals credibility like on defence while they were in oposition? Remember how pro china trade they have always been. Key is now even pro-trump. Sure Ive seen sand in Collins hair at times. Despite sounding sensible when interviewed on Q and A.

John F

As much as a get frustrated with pollies, we all should remind ourselves who put them in office.

Us. This thread has always tollerated a certain amount of cliche Labour bashing ("Commies/socialists" etc) despite being 'apolitical'. Based on this I would guess that this was the government that a lot of our posters wanted.

 

[SeaplanePaul]

Am glad that in her 3/12/24 public interview our Defence Minister picked up on my 23/10/24 concerns about the Communist Chinese Party deploying in October their latest Type 055 Renhai Class Cruiser Xianyang along with the formidable Type 052D Luyang III Class Destroyer Nanning into Vanuatu, just two days sailing distance from New Zealand. Minister Collins is correct in her understanding that we have never had warships with their capability, a combined 176 land attack and anti-ship missiles, so close to our nation.

During World War Two, in number 5 Squadron, Catalinas, my grandfather, along with many other fine men, was deployed to Vanuatu (then known as the New Hebrides) to fight to keep our South Pacific free, and now we see the movements of Communist China, a far more formidable expansionist Asian military power than Imperial Japan ever was, again moving into attempt to occupy the key strategic zone of Vanuatu - the gateway to New Zealand and the critical sailing route into Antarctica and the last untapped resources on our planet.

Geostrategically New Zealand is no longer at the end of a seldom travelled road, we are now the last bastion of democracy on the trade route to Antarctica that the CCP is pushing to control.

For those watchers of the intense covert spy warfare occurring in the South Pacific, yesterday's announcement by the Vanuatu Prime Minister that Communist China will be flying 14 direct flights a week into Vanuatu - with the potential to transport more than a couple thousand loyal CCP members a week into Vanuatu - is just a foretaste of the new geostrategic winds that are blowing towards New Zealand.

The Solomon Islands has fallen to the Guoanbu, Vanuatu is falling to the Guoanbu, and next in the target line of Communist Chinese control to Antarctica is New Zealand.

Let us pray therefore that our Defence Department is watching the critical transformation of the United States Marine Corp 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment into a maritime anti-access area denial force, as evidenced by its acceptance this week of its first operational anti-ship missile system which now gives the marines their ability to contest and control strategic maritime chokepoints.

It is my hope that our three military branches, under guidance from, and working in with the USMC, merge into an integrated New Zealand Marine Force focused on sea denial capability so that we too can contest and control strategic maritime chokepoints to defend our nation and our Pacific partners.

 

[recce.k1]

Its a bit rich to criticise the opposition and treasury and state that National are being sensibly cautious. The current govt, through cuts and inaction on developing and delivering strategy and capability is the one doing the damage now. NZDF will not be treated any different from any other area of public service that isn't geared towards profit/has effective lobbyists. I agree with Rob C- a lot could have and shoild have allready been done and the pause is probably to see what we can get away with not doing/spending. Both sides of politics have been guilty of this, but the Nats wear the responibility for this currently. But its worse now because our equipment is older and the geopolitical situation is ... evolving...

What was nationals credibility like on defence while they were in oposition? Remember how pro china trade they have always been. Key is now even pro-trump. Sure Ive seen sand in Collins hair at times. Despite sounding sensible when interviewed on Q and A.

Just wondering, are you literally in "exile" i.e. based overseas? If so you may be missing local news on defence matters and may explain things?

Anyway nope not rich at all, I'm criticising the Opposition for playing domestic politics (to temper their "harder" left-wing base) a couple of days ago regarding their announcement on AUKUS P2 (link) and it sends a poor message on NZ's bi-partisan foreign policy, especially to our close allies like Australia, who then see yet more potential Kiwi "unreliability". Let's also not forget the Opposition when in Govt 20203-2023 didn't fund DCP19, nor the SOPV, nor the Littoral Warfare Vessel as intended, instead a second-hand Offshore Support vessel and look how that has panned out (rumors are aplenty that the DP system bought wasn't as fully capable as it should have been, let's see what the COI reveals). So as someone who has voted both major parties (and one of the minors) over my lifetime I'll call both sides out, the current Oppostion for being hypocrites (after all they initiated the AUKUS P2 discussions) and the current lot in power (as I did above) for taking their typical/historical laissez-faire approach over defence matters now including the current operating budget deficit problems affecting the wider NZDF. But I'll reserve final judgement on the current lot when their DCP is released, with the expectation it demonstrates clear funding pathways and timelines to achieve the expediture increases and better capability, infrastuucture and staffing outcomes the Coalition (all three parties) parrot from time to time. So I don't see the point of moaning about them at the moment (yes they have form hence fully understand people's cynicism here). Finally presumably you understand how Treasury advice guides Governments of all stripes (and on all funding matters not just defence)? If so do you have any concerns at all about their advice, as per the link above, which doesn't support providing a funding increase sufficient enough to cover current Defence operational baseline funding cost pressures, preferring Defence to live within their means, resulting in the well publicised cuts are being made elsewhere to achieve this? There appears to be a lack of joined up thinking between Treasury and the likes of Foreign Affairs and Defence until the new DCP is released. This is the official line from Treasury but surely they are not blind to the structural issues being caused in the meantime, which will have a compounding effect and will cost more in the long run to overcome? Having said that it is easy for us here to criticise them but the reality is the country has a much larger structural financial deficit problem to contend with caused by massive borrowing and spending during/post covid (with all that money that was splashed around it's a pity the Opposition didn't fund wider infrastructure or in our case of interest the DCP19, personnel and their conditions a lot better or simply new kit capabilities). We are broke so we need to trade our way to prosperity but there is an acknowedgement by officials (finally) that trade and security go hand in hand. So change (for Defence) is coming for the better but how and what it looks like or how long it takes won't be clear until the DCP is released.

In terms of operational cost pressures it is interesting that the increasing cost of ammunition is being cited as one reason for it, which also perhaps suggests (and note that I'm merely speculating) that Defence is quietly acquiring reasonable replacement munitions stocks, where and when practical as a matter of priority (and perhaps due to longer lead times). Thank goodness then the hundreds of CAMM missiles were acquired just before the current Russian/Ukraine war started before global munition supply became under pressure. So we could also be asking what opportunties does this provide for NZ to become more interoperable with, for example, Australia, in planning for greater utilisation of common types for future capabilities?

This reason of planning greater interoperability with Australia is being cited as one of the reasons for the DCP delay. And at face value that sounds plausible, if so, to me the DCP delays to ensure this is a done in a (hopefully) deeper and realistic manner will have a better outcome in the long run (so what's an extra bit of time in the wider scheme of things? And that's not me being pro-National being "sensibly cautious", that's simply an acceptance of the explanation of the situation).

Perhaps we can look at the recent purchase announcement for the Army's tranche one support vehicles as an exampe of a "pre-DCP/interoperability" outcome - look at the criticism that induced here! Thankfully the vehicles appear to be primarily for general service domestic and "near-neighbor" support functions so probably not an issue in the wider scheme of things, particularly as there is still scope for the purchase of further tranches to be acquired and in the meantime I suppose recruitment efforts won't be harmed by seeing the Spanish Humvee look-alike running about the place rather than a Landrover type vehicle etc. (IIRC the Aussie produced Hawkei had a greater weight than what was being requested for the tranche one project specs, i.e. Army weren't looking for that type of capability for this particular tranche. But I'm sure those more informed than me here can clarify etc).

In the meantime, and speaking generally to other commentator responses, no-one seems to be discussing what are some of the likely DCP outcomes.

I'd suggest the maritime domain (space, air and sea and with a light/medium deployable Army) will be one of the highest priorities with a greater emphasis on allied interoperability.

But did the recent CCP intercontinental ballistic missile launch elevate the need to have solutions in the an anti-missile (or tracking) domain? I for one am glad this is presumably now under active consideration with the DCP being delayed.

It is important not to underestimate the significance of this so-called "routine" test on Govt thinking. The CCP have also "violated" the trust of our Pacific Island neighbours by launching an ICBM into the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone and can no longer claim the moral high-ground when it comes to past "colonial" actions and which are ingrained in the memory (and history) of the indigenous people throughout this wider region.

Whilst nuclear propulsion is one thing, to deploy (unannounced to the PI states) a nuclear-capable weapon of destruction was a foolish decision by the CCP that will reduce their standing and increase suspicion of their motives by a whole host of mainly "neutral" nations which will now no longer be the case.

We live in dangerous and escalating times and whomever is in Govt will need to deal with these escalations and give confidence to our wider neighbours. So all I can say is both sides of the political divide need to make good their words and work together with minimal differences. Both major parties (and some of the more activist minor parties) need to lift their game and call out those who hang onto past differences.

 

[Xthenaki]

A very good appraisal as always. I'm not confident that the Govt OTD will respond to major defence spending and see them using "more band aids" to do something rather than nothing. National will be looking for a return to a better economy, Labour - who knows but tend to show little interest in order to appease their pacificists. Catalysts for a shock change would be aggression closer to home or an ultimatum given by our allies or even our coalition partners to do something or else.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Just wondering, are you literally in "exile" i.e. based overseas? If so you may be missing local news on defence matters and may explain thing

Thanks for the well written, well thought reply. Im based in NZ now, I'm cyclical in my news consumption based on work, and I tend to avoid Newztalk ZB, the herald (paywalled) and the post. Newsroom can be good.

I'm criticising the Opposition for playing domestic politics (to temper their "harder" left-wing base) a couple of days ago regarding their announcement on AUKUS P2

You are basically parroting what Collins says in the linked article. In the article she sounds like the one playing politics. Labor looked at Aukus Pillar two (they didn't commit to it) and has decided not to sign up. They are not saying no to interoperability or tech sharing (see Parker later in the article). The article does't mention treasury, but the govt can choose to ignore their advive. This happens all the time. See RNZ

"Treasury to warn the government: "There is an urgent need to resolve the DCP [Defence Capability Plan] and long-term investment strategy, and potentially the need for additional delivery assurance measures going forward."

Both parties have failed us on defence. National has the ball now. Luxon has sounded strong when hes meeting people overseas and Collins sounds good in some interviews. But thats amongst news of cuts to defence, 'sorry we cant fund runway extensions and defence housing in the current climate" etc. And deferring any strategic policy or capability planning. I'm not optimistic.

But did the recent CCP intercontinental ballistic missile launch elevate the need to have solutions in the an anti-missile (or tracking) domain? I for one am glad this is presumably now under active consideration with the DCP being delayed.

Thats a big presumption. Tracking maybe. We could play a part here given our geography and possible our IT industrry (appartently the govt has been meeting with a lot of tech ppl re defence). but I doubt we would have any kinetic anti ballistic missile solutions.
The 250 or so CAMMs: limited range (not CAMM -ERs), no ballistic missile shield capability.

[ I'll reserve final judgement on the current lot when their DCP is released, with the expectation it demonstrates clear funding pathways and timelines to achieve the expediture increases and better capability, infrastuucture and staffing outcomes the Coalition (all three parties) parrot from time to time./QUOTE] Reading the room, not sure many here have the same expectation.

 

[Rob c]

Let's also not forget the Opposition when in Govt 20203-2023 didn't fund DCP19, nor the SOPV, nor the Littoral Warfare Vessel as intended, instead a second-hand Offshore Support vessel and look how that has panned out

Don't think this is a good indicator of any parties support as the current party in power has not ordered and funded a significant major item for a long time, 30-40 years? The reality is that they are both responsible for the biggest funding cuts in GDP terms of the major parties over this period.
However both parties are responsible for the steady decline from 1990 until today except for the period for 2018 to 2021 when it increased under Ron Marks
New Zealand Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2024
Both parties have been responsible for major equipment cuts, for example National cut the ANZAC frigate numbers when Labour had ordered 2 + 2 options National cancelled the 2 options and Helen Clark cancelled the F16's
Historically neither party has been pro defence, except for possibly the David Longy Government of the mid to late 1980's, which maintained defence spending significantly above 2% GDP

 

[recce.k1]

but I doubt we would have any kinetic anti ballistic missile solutions.

The 250 or so CAMMs: limited range (not CAMM -ERs), no ballistic missile shield capability.

I'm thinking it could give Navy the opportunity to advocate for a more advanced capability for its replacement warships (than perhaps had been originally envisaged). But it will represent a (serious) opportunity cost in terms of other priorities across defence due to cost. The reality is though, no other friendly nation would have spare capacity to assist us so that needs to be taken into account. But the other reality is an adversary will have other high value targets across the wider Indo-Pacific to prioritise. So perhaps whilst Navy instead be given approval to supplement CAMM (and associated sensor systems) with something else to provide another layer (i.e. longer range)? If so I wonder whether it would be possible to update the ANZAC's in the interim.

Yes the current CAMM/system are only intended for defence of the ship itself and as was tested last year, to defend another vessel operating with the ship (and of course not against BM's).

Don't think this is a good indicator of any parties support as the current party in power has not ordered and funded a significant major item for a long time, 30-40 years? The reality is that they are both responsible for the biggest funding cuts in GDP terms of the major parties over this period.
However both parties are responsible for the steady decline from 1990 until today except for the period for 2018 to 2021 when it increased under Ron Marks

Sure but a couple of quick points. Sometimes projects start under one Govt (which are then turfed out) and are completed under the next Govt. Recent examples include P-8, C-130J, ANZAC FSU etc.

The other point, regarding funding cuts, were not unique to us, they happened across the West (and Russia for that matter).

The difference though (for us) the pollies and bean counters have been slow to address the changing world situation. DCP19 (somewhat), DCP16 and DWP2010 (or whatever it was called) were mainly (but not entirely) incremental updates to the prioritisation of land-forces re-alignment that happened under the Labour Govt of 1999. That is, peace-keeping which then transformed into peace-enforcement (UN contributions).

The signals coming from Govt today (which were signalled under DCP19/Labour/NZF) in a basic sense is that the maritime domain and allied contributions will be prioritised. This signals a shift which means Defence will fundamentally change (compared to what we have been used to over the last 20-30 years).

And so it should because the (for lack of a better description) "neo-liberal" free-market reforms of the 1980's/90's was deliberately design to "wind defence down" during the peace-dividend era but with a proviso that the Govt "wins defence up" when the strategic situation required it to do so in the future (the likes of Derek Quigley talked/wrote about this). Of course the flaw in this reasoning is that when defence is hollowed out and stupid "great ideas" like Minimum Viable Capability become the new normal it produces the problems we have today eg capabilities have been lost, personnel are under immense pressure and much time and re-investment is needed to bring things up to scratch.

But this is where we are and why I'm "optimistic" as we are starting on the upward trend.

Things are being played out as designed.

Trouble is, it should have started many years earlier ...

 

[Rob c]

Sure but a couple of quick points. Sometimes projects start under one Govt (which are then turfed out) and are completed under the next Govt. Recent examples include P-8, C-130J, ANZAC FSU etc.

The problem with this as stated is that until the finances are approved by government, projects are just that, "projects" and are going nowhere until until the finances are approved. The P8 and C130J projects were continually delayed until the government changed and options ran out.

And so it should because the (for lack of a better description) "neo-liberal" free-market reforms of the 1980's/90's was deliberately design to "wind defence down" during the peace-dividend era but with a proviso that the Govt "wins defence up" when the strategic situation required it to do so in the future (the likes of Derek Quigley talked/wrote about this). Of course the flaw in this reasoning is that when defence is hollowed out and stupid "great ideas" like Minimum Viable Capability become the new normal it produces the problems we have today eg capabilities have been lost, personnel are under immense pressure and much time and re-investment is needed to bring things up to scratch.

Agree, the great problem with thinking you can wind up lost capabilities is that once a capability is lost it can take longer than a decade to fully restore. The restoration of the NZDF to anything approaching a combat defence force that can defend NZ and contribute to regional defence is going to take a long time, a decade or two.
One of the biggest problems was the introduction of the current accounting system including the capital charge, which even Treasury in a report some years ago (late 1990's)admitted was not totally appropriate for Defence, but did it anyway in the interests of conformity. This has had a huge negative and distorting effect on defence. For defence to move forward this needs to change. However I don't see the current goverment doing this.
I think the reality will be with this government will do some window dressing at minimum cost to try and reduce any heat they experience both domestically (likely little) and internationally some they can claim that they are doing their bit.

 

[John Fedup]

The problem with this as stated is that until the finances are approved by government, projects are just that, "projects" and are going nowhere until until the finances are approved. The P8 and C130J projects were continually delayed until the government changed and options ran out.

Agree, the great problem with thinking you can wind up lost capabilities is that once a capability is lost it can take longer than a decade to fully restore. The restoration of the NZDF to anything approaching a combat defence force that can defend NZ and contribute to regional defence is going to take a long time, a decade or two.
One of the biggest problems was the introduction of the current accounting system including the capital charge, which even Treasury in a report some years ago (late 1990's)admitted was not totally appropriate for Defence, but did it anyway in the interests of conformity. This has had a huge negative and distorting effect on defence. For defence to move forward this needs to change. However I don't see the current goverment doing this.
I think the reality will be with this government will do some window dressing at minimum cost to try and reduce any heat they experience both domestically (likely little) and internationally some they can claim that they are doing their bit.

If Trump actually forces Canada to get defence corrected, it may prompt Australia, Japan and other allies to force NZ to do the same. It could be the only positive outcome from Trump’s second term.

 

[Gracie1234]

An interest poll out yesterday. Two and a half times more people support joining AUKUS than not.
I feel this is pretty big number considering the negative press on it.

The Post

www.thepost.co.nz

 

[Gooey]

Interesting poll thanks Gracie1234.
On top of some very interesting posts recently on this thread: Thank you for the DCP updates and the recommendation for NewRoom news.
My 5 cents:
1. Labour got us out of ANZUS in the 80's when they promised they would stay in while making us Nuc free; this remains the biggest strategic disaster yet for NZ (including the Maori land wars and WWII fall of Singapore) b/ we are always going to need close allies and ANZUS gave us defence on the cheap
2. Labour in the 90's also destroyed the RNZAF and our ability to go kinetic at a distance
3. As per Robc's Defence Spending, both main parties have consistently under invested since the 80's and ignored the maritime core of our national security
4. The capacity down grading in NZDF includes its general Mana within government and its ability to present modern, Operational and Strategic level doctrines to government
5. AUKUS Pillar II, as a technology sharing agreement, is a pimple compared to the broad brush that was ANZUS
6. The Nuc legislation is unnecessarily banning nuc power for no strategic effect
7. Solution: to succeed, has to be long-term and agreed by both Lab & Nats to concentrate on increasing kinetic maritime capability (ala ASW & Fast Jet) for both ourselves and Allies

 

[jbc388]

Interesting poll thanks Gracie1234.
On top of some very interesting posts recently on this thread: Thank you for the DCP updates and the recommendation for NewRoom news.
My 5 cents:
1. Labour got us out of ANZUS in the 80's when they promised they would stay in while making us Nuc free; this remains the biggest strategic disaster yet for NZ (including the Maori land wars and WWII fall of Singapore) b/ we are always going to need close allies and ANZUS gave us defence on the cheap
2. Labour in the 90's also destroyed the RNZAF and our ability to go kinetic at a distance
3. As per Robc's Defence Spending, both main parties have consistently under invested since the 80's and ignored the maritime core of our national security
4. The capacity down grading in NZDF includes its general Mana within government and its ability to present modern, Operational and Strategic level doctrines to government
5. AUKUS Pillar II, as a technology sharing agreement, is a pimple compared to the broad brush that was ANZUS
6. The Nuc legislation is unnecessarily banning nuc power for no strategic effect
7. Solution: to succeed, has to be long-term and agreed by both Lab & Nats to concentrate on increasing kinetic maritime capability (ala ASW & Fast Jet) for both ourselves and Allies

What you say is true!!
But NZ has a huge problem! that NZ politicians from both sides National/Labour and the rest are incapable of working together make a decision that would be of strategic benefit to the country/allies/defence partners. We have National who don't want to spend any $$ required!!, Labour who have their heads buried in the sand!
Also if a decision is made the wrong equipment is bought!, numbers of equipment cut!, systems that are bought are the budget with missing subsystems (look at the sunken naval ship), major equipment purchased with "fitted for but not with" time and time again!!!.

The navy needs new ships 3 or more frigates 2 just doesn't work!!/helicopters/ASW systems and weapons, better antiship weapons!!
The Airforce needs more P-8's, C130's, recon drones/aircraft with weapons eg antiship missles,medium transport helicopters 8 is not enough!!
The army needs anti air/drone weapons/systems, new armour, artillary systems with longer range, more anti armour weapons!!

The NZDF couldn't defend the local beach here in Christchurch!! let alone anything larger!!!

Also last but not least recruit more personal, fix defence real estate ASAP!! and pay people what they are worth!!

But this is not going to happen with this current government as they delay and delay again the DCP!!

 

[Rob c]

Also last but not least recruit more personal, fix defence real estate ASAP!! and pay people what they are worth!!

The biggest problem with successive governments is that they see service personal as just like any other employee which is not the case. To be a successful in the armed services it is more of a calling than just a job and requires more out of a person than the 8 to 5 job. The need for constant teamwork and working for the overall good as apposed to one self and fitting into a system with a different set of rules and regulations plus higher expectations than the normal job place significantly higher stress on the individual.
The armed forces in the past had systems in place to cover this, including comradeship, reduced housing costs various support packages and a service allowance above normal civy pay and other incentive schemes like long term pensions etc.
In the quest to make everything to be like a business this has been deleted, as the pollies failed to understand that defence is not a BUSINESS.
The big problem in NZ is that most pollies don't understand defence and either don't want to or just like to be ignorant. (most of them are anyway but won't admit it)

 

[Xthenaki]

The biggest problem with successive governments is that they see service personal as just like any other employee which is not the case. To be a successful in the armed services it is more of a calling than just a job and requires more out of a person than the 8 to 5 job. The need for constant teamwork and working for the overall good as apposed to one self and fitting into a system with a different set of rules and regulations plus higher expectations than the normal job place significantly higher stress on the individual.
The armed forces in the past had systems in place to cover this, including comradeship, reduced housing costs various support packages and a service allowance above normal civy pay and other incentive schemes like long term pensions etc.
In the quest to make everything to be like a business this has been deleted, as the pollies failed to understand that defence is not a BUSINESS.
The big problem in NZ is that most pollies don't understand defence and either don't want to or just like to be ignorant. (most of them are anyway but won't admit it)

BANG ON - Could not agree more

 

[jbc388]

The biggest problem with successive governments is that they see service personal as just like any other employee which is not the case. To be a successful in the armed services it is more of a calling than just a job and requires more out of a person than the 8 to 5 job. The need for constant teamwork and working for the overall good as apposed to one self and fitting into a system with a different set of rules and regulations plus higher expectations than the normal job place significantly higher stress on the individual.
The armed forces in the past had systems in place to cover this, including comradeship, reduced housing costs various support packages and a service allowance above normal civy pay and other incentive schemes like long term pensions etc.
In the quest to make everything to be like a business this has been deleted, as the pollies failed to understand that defence is not a BUSINESS.
The big problem in NZ is that most pollies don't understand defence and either don't want to or just like to be ignorant. (most of them are anyway but won't admit it)

That is so true that NZ pollies are just plain ignorant of anything defence related! Defence should never have been made into a "Business" this is one of the first things that need to change NOW!! the housing needs to revert to being cheaper than market rents also up to code and healthy to live in!! this will help to retain personal for a start but governments just don't want to pay to sort the mess out that they have caused over the last 30 years.

We have a colitition government with a National political bias in which providing a decent funded budget just won't occur, you just have to look at the last defence budget and the lack of real funding increases!! I don't like to say this but the DCP which might be ready one of the years into the future because the government of the day can alway trot the line that "The Strategic situation is always changing" so they can delay this plan indefinitely "while we get this right" so overall I have no faith in this current or future NZ govt actually having the balls to sort out the mess they themselves are/have created!!