It doesn't matter that a Kiwi ACF is land based. The point being is that we'd have an indigenous i.e., Kiwi ACF as part of the Amphib force and either forgoe any air cover or having to rely on another nation for air cover.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
NZDF is being reroled to conduct amphibious operations with our ADF cousins in the South West Pacific by 2035. Army has begun to transition now with its new force structure NLT 2015 by 2025 the right equipment should be just entering service and by 2035 the NZDF will be able to conduct an operation alone in a low to medium level threat or as part of a coalition force for anything higher.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Budget 2012: Vote Defence & Vote Defence Force
Treasury have released the Estimates of Appropriations 2012/13:
MOD: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2012/estimates/est12defen.pdf
NZDF: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2012/estimates/est12deffor.pdf
In terms of capital expenditure, can anyone explain the following:
MOD: Non-Departmental Capital Expenditure: Defence Equipment (M22) This appropriation is limited to the purchase, modification or refurbishment of major items of defence equipment for the New Zealand Defence Force.
FY2012/13 $160,230,000 (a slight increase from FY2011/12 $154,897,000)
NZDF: Departmental Capital Expenditure: New Zealand Defence Force - Capital Expenditure PLA (M22) This appropriation is limited to the purchase or development of assets by and for the use of the New Zealand Defence Force, as authorised by section 24(1) of the Public Finance Act 1989.
FY2012/13 $496,000,000 (an increase over FY2011/12 $432,000,000)
MOD are to expend $160M and NZDF $496M, does this mean Defence (MOD+NZDF) are to expend $654M this FY? Or does it mean NZDF, eg, receives up to some $160M but then transfers this (up to) $160M to MOD's coffers to handle the business end of any acquisitions or developments?
Also in the NZDF Departmental Output Expenses it's pleasing to see some increases in funding for the various Outputs.
Mind you check out Military Hydrography - nil funding now, with HMNZS Resolution's LINZ contract ending and her decomissioning.
Also, Rotary Wing Transport Forces, their budget is now $246M, a whopping increase from the $140M allocated last FY - a reflection that NZG is supporting the greater operating costs of the NH-90's and AW-109's over their predecessors (and presumably for the need to operate the old and new types in parallel for a few more years - I read today 3 Hueys have been deployed to sunny Samoa for tropical training).
Then when one looks at the budgets for the Airborne Surveillance and Response Forces, Fixed Wing Transport Forces, Land Combat Forces and so on (Naval Combat Forces $357M) each year when I see these figures I can't help wondering about the ACF costing $80M back in 2001 or was it $160M with the Macchis (anyone know what these figures would equate to nowadays?) and claims from the NZG of that time that NZ couldn't afford them.
Granted, the ACF was underfunded back in the day anyway (eg laser designator upgrades cancelled before their disbandment, i.e. the ACF were lacking vital equipment to have seen them deployed in a hostile environment (eg GW1/2), but really if there ever was evidence about then NZG's ACF disbandment reasoning being suspect, then surely these figures expose their public deception?
Treasury have released the Estimates of Appropriations 2012/13:
MOD: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2012/estimates/est12defen.pdf
NZDF: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2012/estimates/est12deffor.pdf
In terms of capital expenditure, can anyone explain the following:
MOD: Non-Departmental Capital Expenditure: Defence Equipment (M22) This appropriation is limited to the purchase, modification or refurbishment of major items of defence equipment for the New Zealand Defence Force.
FY2012/13 $160,230,000 (a slight increase from FY2011/12 $154,897,000)
NZDF: Departmental Capital Expenditure: New Zealand Defence Force - Capital Expenditure PLA (M22) This appropriation is limited to the purchase or development of assets by and for the use of the New Zealand Defence Force, as authorised by section 24(1) of the Public Finance Act 1989.
FY2012/13 $496,000,000 (an increase over FY2011/12 $432,000,000)
MOD are to expend $160M and NZDF $496M, does this mean Defence (MOD+NZDF) are to expend $654M this FY? Or does it mean NZDF, eg, receives up to some $160M but then transfers this (up to) $160M to MOD's coffers to handle the business end of any acquisitions or developments?
Also in the NZDF Departmental Output Expenses it's pleasing to see some increases in funding for the various Outputs.
Mind you check out Military Hydrography - nil funding now, with HMNZS Resolution's LINZ contract ending and her decomissioning.
Also, Rotary Wing Transport Forces, their budget is now $246M, a whopping increase from the $140M allocated last FY - a reflection that NZG is supporting the greater operating costs of the NH-90's and AW-109's over their predecessors (and presumably for the need to operate the old and new types in parallel for a few more years - I read today 3 Hueys have been deployed to sunny Samoa for tropical training).
Then when one looks at the budgets for the Airborne Surveillance and Response Forces, Fixed Wing Transport Forces, Land Combat Forces and so on (Naval Combat Forces $357M) each year when I see these figures I can't help wondering about the ACF costing $80M back in 2001 or was it $160M with the Macchis (anyone know what these figures would equate to nowadays?) and claims from the NZG of that time that NZ couldn't afford them.
Granted, the ACF was underfunded back in the day anyway (eg laser designator upgrades cancelled before their disbandment, i.e. the ACF were lacking vital equipment to have seen them deployed in a hostile environment (eg GW1/2), but really if there ever was evidence about then NZG's ACF disbandment reasoning being suspect, then surely these figures expose their public deception?
I saw this link elsewhere and after reading it think in some ways it states the obvious but believe it is a message of low morale and the harsh employment treatment of personnel and detrimental impacts of current govt cost cutting policy that needs to get out. New Zealand Defence Force Redundancies Cost $8.2m | Stuff.co.nz
Again another epic fail by the NZ media. Tabloid trash.
Redundancies only happen once which exposes how braindead this Fairfax reporter is - of course it will affect the balance sheet the first fiscal year after they happen. What about the savings downstream over the next decade? The budget yesterday reveals that more money set aside as a percentage of Vote Defence will be spent on major acquisition projects over the years ahead. The money is going from the blunt to the sharp as was signposted 18 months ago.
Im sorry too sound too harsh - but there is an extremely poor international economic outlook which will take years to stabilise with some countries that were considered economically on par or even better than NZ in the last few decades probably will be unable to recover that standing for decades. We will get into surplus - what in about 3 years or so? Yes there is going to be some collateral damage and a reduction in morale - however I would rather take 3 mores years of tight spending and managed restructuring rather than complete carnage that would otherwise happen and retain the chance to have an effective defence force and other government institutions for the decades ahead.
New Zealand is getting off lightly at present, yet most Kiwi's simply do not have a clue how serious things are beyond there shores - not just within Defence Forces but right across societies. I see more homeless people and genuine poverty in my 10 minute walk from my subway station to my apartment than I saw in years living in Auckland. However it is all doom and gloom in NZ because we still cannot have the myth of utopia. To a certain extent this is probably because the information feed to them by a feekless and generally incompetent media is exacerbated by the silo mentality that comes from living in a distant yet comfortable global backwater.
Rant over. I hope I didn't upset too many people
Interested
New Member
123456
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I recall former PM Helen Clark saying at the time $800M would be saved over 10 years ($80M/year).
To link to this as you ask, the Govt quoted figure was $870M over 10 years: Fighter wing costly to rebuild: officials - National - NZ Herald News
As an aside what's also interesting in that article is that former CDF Carey Adamson stated it would "cost two to three times the estimated saving over the next decade by scrapping the wing" to restore an air combat wing (I take it he meant $870M x 2 or x3 = $1.7-2.6B)! No wonder why National got cold feet (mind you that figure would be spread over, say 10 years, not 1).
The other figure I used to hear quoted in the media was $160M/yr. But these figures do seem incredibly low compared to other Defence Output Classes.
So after further checking two other media articles quote $233M/yr (for 4425 flight hours).
This seems in line with other Defence Output Classes. So a further check of Treasury documents from the time eg 1999/2000 show a figure of $226M.
So there we have it $80M as per the Govt of the day and $220-230M+ according to other sources including Treasury. Can't explain this discrepency but as a result I do accept this higher figure.
This may be helpful as it has nearly all the figures you require and some.
Air Combat Review Annex B [Ministry of Defence NZ]
It also noted in Appendix B that Capital expenditure of $11 million (GST exclusive) would have been required to keep 14 A-4's airworthy them airworthy and usable for training to FY 2007/08. This would also have required a reduced Maachi fleet of around nine airframes. This reduced fleet would have essentially cost half the net $150m p.a through to 2008. One has also got to remember the 2 Sqd cost which was substantially covered by the ADF thus it is hard to pinpoint an accurate figure as well as inflated book values of the aircraft per depreciation charges.
However in the passage of time all this is now is history never to see its like again.
Air Combat Review Annex B [Ministry of Defence NZ]
It also noted in Appendix B that Capital expenditure of $11 million (GST exclusive) would have been required to keep 14 A-4's airworthy them airworthy and usable for training to FY 2007/08. This would also have required a reduced Maachi fleet of around nine airframes. This reduced fleet would have essentially cost half the net $150m p.a through to 2008. One has also got to remember the 2 Sqd cost which was substantially covered by the ADF thus it is hard to pinpoint an accurate figure as well as inflated book values of the aircraft per depreciation charges.
However in the passage of time all this is now is history never to see its like again.
Interested
New Member
123456
Last edited:
That is based on the proposition that we woulld have kept the A4s. If Uncle Helen hadn't cancelled the F16s then the figures would have been different and it would have been interesting to see what those figures would have been. I know that 28 F16s were to have been acquired but still it would've been instructional to have been able to make a quantitative and reasonably objective comparison. Then the major aspects could have been looked at and discussed.
Well once the F-16 deal was cut in 2000 there was a year where some in defence were desparate to keep a reduced number of A-4's for 7 more years (and some others who thought culling A-4's could mean more LAV's). The pro LAV crowd won.
The F-16 lease was costed at USD52 cent to NZD$1 dollar ratio. The average exchange rate differential for the Kiwi to the USD during the 00/10 decade was 65. This means that the cost of the lease-buy deal when arced through installment schedule would have been greatly more favourable for us throughout the decade than when the deal was contracted. The Falcon Up upgrades were planned as pre-funded during the second half of the lease from fiscal yr 05. The item not pre-funded as per the payment schedule was the ECM pods which USD$40m would have been required.
Politics of the day killed it and politics of today are still toxic enough that the concept is a dead parrot. The future role of the RNZAF is primarily MPA/ISR, utility rotary and fast logistical support and it isnt going to change.
The F-16 lease was costed at USD52 cent to NZD$1 dollar ratio. The average exchange rate differential for the Kiwi to the USD during the 00/10 decade was 65. This means that the cost of the lease-buy deal when arced through installment schedule would have been greatly more favourable for us throughout the decade than when the deal was contracted. The Falcon Up upgrades were planned as pre-funded during the second half of the lease from fiscal yr 05. The item not pre-funded as per the payment schedule was the ECM pods which USD$40m would have been required.
Politics of the day killed it and politics of today are still toxic enough that the concept is a dead parrot. The future role of the RNZAF is primarily MPA/ISR, utility rotary and fast logistical support and it isnt going to change.
Mr Conservative, (Why specifically direct this to me?)
Given economic conditions, the extreme percentage of NZ trade going to China, and Chinas massive liquidity, the invasion NZ will face is more likely to be bought with Chinese money than fought with military.
The sale of 16 farms to China this year established their beachhead. No NZ troops came to turn them back. Chinese demands to own as much of NZ as they desire look unlikely to be fought by govt or military as their economic power to buy NZ exports is the conquering force.
Chinese people have been in NZ since the 1870's and since then have been a significant contributor to the NZ way of life and economy.
I see no one complaining other than racists when Americans pop singers, Canadians, Germans and many other countries citizens have bought Kiwi farms in the past. Foreign ownership is just a small fraction of the total amount of arable land as Recce pointed out. Overall, it is substantially owned by Kiwi individuals both in value and in acrerage. Kiwi's own substantially more land overseas than foreigners do in NZ - Sth American dairy investment by Kiwi's for example is huge and they don't seem to have the xenophobia some Kiwi's do.
Who held the security over the Alan Crafar mortgages? Australian banks who have had capital invested in NZ since the colony began alongside British investment. The original capital flow that built NZ came from Australia and the UK. Foreign investment has been a huge part of this countries development and only the economically and cognitively deficient don't understand that. If you note that Chinese trade with NZ is "extreme" as you put it - how does that reconcile with Australia our largest trading partner - are they going to invade also? Is Shania Twain going to Invade also? The whole premise of your post was sheer dribble. This is a serious site and not some local New Zealand political blog where such trash talk is allowed. Take your veiled xenophobia elsewhere or school your self up on defence issues quick smart.
Given economic conditions, the extreme percentage of NZ trade going to China, and Chinas massive liquidity, the invasion NZ will face is more likely to be bought with Chinese money than fought with military.
The sale of 16 farms to China this year established their beachhead. No NZ troops came to turn them back. Chinese demands to own as much of NZ as they desire look unlikely to be fought by govt or military as their economic power to buy NZ exports is the conquering force.
Chinese people have been in NZ since the 1870's and since then have been a significant contributor to the NZ way of life and economy.
I see no one complaining other than racists when Americans pop singers, Canadians, Germans and many other countries citizens have bought Kiwi farms in the past. Foreign ownership is just a small fraction of the total amount of arable land as Recce pointed out. Overall, it is substantially owned by Kiwi individuals both in value and in acrerage. Kiwi's own substantially more land overseas than foreigners do in NZ - Sth American dairy investment by Kiwi's for example is huge and they don't seem to have the xenophobia some Kiwi's do.
Who held the security over the Alan Crafar mortgages? Australian banks who have had capital invested in NZ since the colony began alongside British investment. The original capital flow that built NZ came from Australia and the UK. Foreign investment has been a huge part of this countries development and only the economically and cognitively deficient don't understand that. If you note that Chinese trade with NZ is "extreme" as you put it - how does that reconcile with Australia our largest trading partner - are they going to invade also? Is Shania Twain going to Invade also? The whole premise of your post was sheer dribble. This is a serious site and not some local New Zealand political blog where such trash talk is allowed. Take your veiled xenophobia elsewhere or school your self up on defence issues quick smart.
Last edited by a moderator:
Welcome to Defence Talk - Please read the rules (It makes life easier for us Mods).
I'm not sure how you comments are directly relevant to to Mr C valid comments about the current role of the RNZAF, which has been discussed in the forum extensively (We recommend all new posters review it, as it saves rehashing old arguments). The arguments you raise about the economic power of China maybe valid (and I tend to agree with you in part) but do not contribute to the discussion on the NZDF. If you would like to discuss them further please consider using the off topic forum
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
One comment to put things in perspective though, in the last 5 years (prior to the Crayfar purchase of 7,900 hectares) this report states Chinese interests bought 223 hectares out of 872,313 hectares sold. In that same time US interests bought 193,208ha.
New Zealand's total land area is 26.9 million hectares. I really don't think Chinese interests are going to over run NZ (and if one was really concerned about that remote possibility then how would eg US, UK and Australian interests react? They will want their interests protected by rule of law or worse case scenario, force.
China is securing resources worldwide to grow their economy and the Crayfar farms purchase is to protect her supply of milk and dairy products. NZ is not unique in this regard. But NZ's economy, like Australia, is benefiting from this investment.
New Zealand's total land area is 26.9 million hectares. I really don't think Chinese interests are going to over run NZ (and if one was really concerned about that remote possibility then how would eg US, UK and Australian interests react? They will want their interests protected by rule of law or worse case scenario, force.
China is securing resources worldwide to grow their economy and the Crayfar farms purchase is to protect her supply of milk and dairy products. NZ is not unique in this regard. But NZ's economy, like Australia, is benefiting from this investment.
I love it when people think that when foreign countries buy farmland in their own country then during wartime (or crisis) its like that country will have some sort of beachhead or be able to use that land. A notable example is when people go on about farmland being bought by foreign companies and how during a time of crisis we might need this food. When not considering that we can always just nationalise these assets whenever we want if its really such a big deal.
Last edited:
Yep and the beauty about nationalisation is we don't even have to pay compensation if we are real mean. If we do pay it doesn't have to be at market rates either because it'll be the govt setting the price. In reality the land in NZ under foreign ownership is negilble but everybody has got on their hind legs about because it is a Chinese company buying it. Very racist. They forget that a NZ Govt agency will be managing and running the farms so taxpayer gets an ongoing income stream from that and it would be a significant income stream.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
Although I think it is an over reaction in a country like NZ (which is an exporter of food products), the buying up of arable farming land by foreign commercial interests is a growing issue in many countries that already have food issues. In most cases this isn't an issue yet (such as South America) but the pressure is starting to show in areas which is vulnerable to food supply issues, such as Africa.
Multinationals are buying up land in African countries in order to export food or biomass, and in some cases (Ethiopia and Sudan are examples) these countries are at the same time receiving food aid from foreign governments because they can't feed large parts of their populations. It's a screwed up world.
Multinationals are buying up land in African countries in order to export food or biomass, and in some cases (Ethiopia and Sudan are examples) these countries are at the same time receiving food aid from foreign governments because they can't feed large parts of their populations. It's a screwed up world.
This article appeared on the Stuff website this morning.
About time some common sense broke out and some normality entered the defence and security relationship between the US & NZ. The US will have expectations of NZ pulling its weight and that may give the pollies a kick start into increasing funding for Vote: Defence especially capital expenditure. We can also live in hope and pigs can fly too.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Here's a link to the NZG press release:
beehive.govt.nz - US-NZ defence arrangement signed
There's also a PDF on the framework, known as "The Washington Declaration":
http://beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/WashingtonDeclaration.pdf
Check out para 3 where it talks about expanding cooperation by eg building the participant's maritime security presence and capabilities; strengthening the participant's maritime domain awareness and so on.
Good stuff, that'll make the bean counters' head spin
Ok but seriously, this is a great step for NZ considering it's been some 28 years since US-NZ trained and had high level discussions in this part of the world. It takes time to re-build this cooperation up from pretty much scratch. Onwards and upwards eh.