I see the new DCP as another case of political smoke and mirrors and they are just reallocating the remains of the $20b first allocated in 2017 and confirmed in 2018 by the then new Labour government and later by the following DCP. Since then it has been very slow progress in spending it and probably just bring some of the unspent back into the forefront. There is no attempt to actually build a force to defend NZ which we had in the late 1980's. As I said all smoke and mirrors.
I get where you are coming from (and don't disagree with some of the general tone) but I wouldn't characterise it so negatively overall. Yes the foundations are from recent reviews (which is natural, i.e. imagine if instead there was continual chopping and changing each time a govt changed) but this review is somewhat broader and plugs some missing gaps (such as in the technology, digital and industrial base areas - yesterday DefMin Collins said something along the lines of NZ industry producing (or perhaps she really meant collaborating with others) to build "drones". Also the mention of logistics and the need to up stock (our relatively small range of) munitions etc. IMO it's a good start as the baseline for future reviews and thankfully reviews will now become biennial and be tweaked as needs change.
In terms of "unspent" funding of past reviews ... as you note that's was the problem. The funding was never fully allocated in the first place (the 2020-2023 Govt takes the ultimate cake - they produced DCP19 and issued a foreboding review in 2022 ... but didn't fund any new CapEx projects during their time in office. And reading between the lines previous DefMin Andrew Little made in an interview a few months ago he couldn't get the then Finance Minister to approve a solution for a critical helicopter project, which I interpreted more as meaning the "rumor" of leasing AW-159 Wildcats to overcome the Seasprite availability issues rather than the project acquisition itself?), so this review is in effect a catch-up for lost time and in essence commits $12b (or $9b excluding depreciation - note that depreciation can be utilised for future investments) for the next 4 years and that is a major positive. NZDF's existing assets will now be fully configured (armed) and some projects that were earmarked for the 2030's have been brought forward (eg long range maritime "drones). Personnel numbers are to grow (nearly double that envisaged in DCP19) and we look to Budget 2025/26 to see if the Govt commits to further improving personnel wages and such like (the media have been pressing the Govt on this and the responses appear to acknowledge this need without giving anything away, so let's see).
My only criticism would be (as somewhat aligned with some of the thoughts of Gooey, Gibbo's and yourself), is that ideally some other new initiatives should be started now (i.e. in this 4 year funding window) to build up additional "lethal" capacity to enhance the defence of NZ (and by association the SPac and to better assist Australia). Off the top of my head, it could be anything from advanced jet air trainers (to add to the "advanced" part of the flying training syllabus and as a lead in for the future) for the Air Force, for the Army moving a component of the "future land-based strike" into the "now" to give the gunners another tool in their kit to familiarise themselves with other capabilities our allies take for granted (and to better inform the future acquisition projects. I'd even be looking at the new US Army light tank project as a potential option to support infantry in the island-hopping campaigns for the 2029 future needs etc). For the Navy, as the Maritime fleet renewal is in motion best to wait until that concludes.
However I get that, and others here have articulated well, NZDF needs to rebuild its "base" including personnel numbers and outdated infrastructure so that takes priority in the short-medium term including enhancing existing kit.
Another thing, at the Govt press conference I noted the PM and DefMin were actually talking about the "here and now" i.e. the DCP's 2025-2028 timeframe so that explains why, when asked by the reporters, they answered the "Frigates" and
HMNZS Manawanui won't be replaced nor see the return of the ACF.
But we know three things. Firstly the Frigates
will be replaced (in the DCP's 2029 time-fame onwards). Secondly that the Maritime Fleet renewal project who knows could recommend a fit-for-purpose replacement for
Manawanui (hence DefMin Collins saying it won't be replaced is entirely consistent and "logical" when she is talking about the DCP projections, as they are of now, for 2025-2028, and thus existing OPV assets can be tasked to take over some of
Manawanui's roles). Thirdly the DCP's somewhat (deliberate) ambiguity about future investments for additional maritime strike across domains suggest something else could be acquired, akin to ACF (manned or unmanned), or perhaps say "cruise missiles" (using the ADF's long range missile strike options as an example) but there is still work to be done in this space to better inform future decision making and no doubt in association with our Australian cousins to add something to their arsenal. So the fact that it is mentioned is signaling an intent.
Just a final few other thoughts. I would say the era of the two-Frigate navy will be over (after all how we got to that was purely political and in a "benign security environment" era, which is now over). So it will be back to 3-4 (or possibly "more" if the replacement OPV's turn out to be "FFBNW" options of the same), after all Navy have been advocating for this for a while now (and the funding will be there post 2030) and the recent ANZAC FSU upgrades have exposed the fallacy of the "minimum viable capability of two" when both vessels were only not available during the FSU upgrade process, they then needed time for the crew to regain competency operating the new systems so were not available for deployment for several more months. And by achieving capability "mass" it also means increased personnel numbers minimising "hollowness" issues if critical and experienced personnel leave or are unavailable due to training, skillset advancements or spending time learning with other navies etc.
On the 757 replacement project, that's quite substantial funding for essentially two pax airliners, so wondering if the options under consideration include a third, and/or cargo conversion, and/or new infrastructure such as hangers, and/or squeezing in one (or potentially two) supplementary airlifters eg additional C-130J-30, to make up for potential cargo carrying shortfall? I say the later from reading up on historic decision making when the C-130H's (and 727's) were first purchased, the issues being pax v cargo and the need at times to be able to carry both versus the need at times to prioritise one over the other (eg if we have a Ministerial trade delegation flying overseas it is better to tie up a non-mil spec aircraft, to ensure mil-spec type availability for other urgent or short-notice taskings. So a potential supplementary airlifter buy is to make up for a primarily pax only acquisition configuration cargo short fall. In essence a C-130J-30 has about the same cargo carrying capacity as the current modified 757-200's, which will be lost if only 737/A321 pax only a/c are acquired, hence .... ). But who knows I could be wide of the mark.
I still think there is a need for at least a couple more P-8's, which would help strengthen the ANZAC cooperation connection. However the likely reality is 5 Squadron is still rebuilding aircrew/groundcrew support numbers into the short term (the squadron's commander has said their target is for 50% more additional aircrews than aircraft), but considering it takes a 2-3 years to achieve a production slot and another couple of years to actually build and test them, it would be ideal if this could be reconsidered at the two year review point (or perhaps a decision is made now to hold back the long range endurance capability. As others have said (Gooey!) it takes time to build this capability including (presumably) both taking away existing personnel and recruiting new personnel to operate these capabilities 24/7. It will be another learning curve (which could be overcome if push came to shove) so I dearly hope Defence will be (if not already) liaising very closely with its RAAF counterparts operating MQ-4C and/or USN with its MQ-9B to better inform planning and understanding operational needs.
