The accent on climate change in the new defence policy appears quite clever as it will rope the Greens in, but overall will it be followed with action to boost defence capability to cover the short falls or will it be just another sound good but do nothing policy document, beloved by politicians.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
t68
Well-Known Member
It’s interesting defining the capability that any nation needs is it strategic circumstance, comparing Singapore to New Zealand you can see that has differing needs and history tells us that they need to be vigilant.
But looking at the capability SAF and Singapore GDP is roughly 40% larger but their commitment to defence and capability to there overall size is quite an acheviment.
But in saying that the major equipment list of the SAF is not applicable to NZ but that not to suggest NZ dose not have need for the equipment in a more high end capability and endurance as NZ is expected to commit far from home waters, now that with the defence policy that has opened their eyes to the strategic situation. Hopefully this is the start to rebuilding a more robust capabilty within defence overall, emphasis needs to be placed with Navy -Airforce then Army
At least it named some names - they haven't been able to bring themselves to say them previously.
ODT focusing on the 'capsize near miss' the defence minister mentioned when highlighting climate change challenges and why ships should be ice strengthened : Navy ship in capsize near-miss with 75 on board
With both the Navy and Air Force I see an extra frigate and 3 C130j's as immediate necessities.
The navy needs an extra frigate now and 2nd hand may be the option (Aussie??) leaving the new frigate options (3) to be programmed over the next 10 - 20 years.(IfT26 maybe batches 1 & 2 - Au or UK)
The Air force C/K130J mix or A400M if problems have been overcome. This leaves the C2 and possibly the Embraer to enter production, be proven and form our main focus for the future.
mods have moved this to NZ thread, but my comments are based on inertia of ADF in embracing NZDF potential.
Re NZDF, Do members here actually believe that if either Aust or NZ were involved in an incident the other would most definitely wish or feel committed to contribute to aid the other?
I believe that of the NZ (its mutual, & Australians too) population excepting the far L demographic that won't accept anything, every other rational thinking person would expect the NZG to respond accordingly.
I also believe that has already been acknowledged by the NZG, the world is now far more volatile, that a precursor such as this scenario is the most likely cause of any NZDF mobilisation.
If the NZ population, and govt have a predisposing view that they only have to defend Rotorua, then a minimalist defence allowance can be seen as appropriate.
If the NZ population and Govt understand that they are actually part of a bigger world, despite being an independent nation with a brilliant rugby team, they are intrinsically undeniably linked in every facet to Australia and the wider South Pacific in particular, then that lends itself to the rationale of realistic defence capability.
The fact that the NZG dedicate such a small budget and priority to defence is simply an extension of them being able to believe they live in a remote bubble. This is the Australian Govt & defence planners fault.
There is a plausible fog of logic in Canberra that is seemingly totally blind to the obvious fact that in any adverse event NZ will be there.
But what can they contribute?
From a starting legal viewpoint, they are a signatory to ANZUS.
Will we be condemned to watch the NZDF scramble at the last minute to gather resources, consolidate what they have for a high end conflict? Has the ADF even bothered to consider what for example a joint maritime commander may seek from a NZ contribution whilst RAN assets are deployed further north?
I accept that I'm on the outside looking in, but in the absence of parallel capability development (capability, not specifically numbers, & it doesn't have to be the same kit, just that it does a similar thing to your key ally), the observation that NZ wanders along seemingly disjointed from its key ally lends itself to the conclusion that I'm most probably correct, even if to a fair degree.
I think it's about time we acknowledged formally that we need a co-ordinated capability plan, because we will not be responding to an event alone.
Re NZDF, Do members here actually believe that if either Aust or NZ were involved in an incident the other would most definitely wish or feel committed to contribute to aid the other?
I believe that of the NZ (its mutual, & Australians too) population excepting the far L demographic that won't accept anything, every other rational thinking person would expect the NZG to respond accordingly.
I also believe that has already been acknowledged by the NZG, the world is now far more volatile, that a precursor such as this scenario is the most likely cause of any NZDF mobilisation.
If the NZ population, and govt have a predisposing view that they only have to defend Rotorua, then a minimalist defence allowance can be seen as appropriate.
If the NZ population and Govt understand that they are actually part of a bigger world, despite being an independent nation with a brilliant rugby team, they are intrinsically undeniably linked in every facet to Australia and the wider South Pacific in particular, then that lends itself to the rationale of realistic defence capability.
The fact that the NZG dedicate such a small budget and priority to defence is simply an extension of them being able to believe they live in a remote bubble. This is the Australian Govt & defence planners fault.
There is a plausible fog of logic in Canberra that is seemingly totally blind to the obvious fact that in any adverse event NZ will be there.
But what can they contribute?
From a starting legal viewpoint, they are a signatory to ANZUS.
Will we be condemned to watch the NZDF scramble at the last minute to gather resources, consolidate what they have for a high end conflict? Has the ADF even bothered to consider what for example a joint maritime commander may seek from a NZ contribution whilst RAN assets are deployed further north?
I accept that I'm on the outside looking in, but in the absence of parallel capability development (capability, not specifically numbers, & it doesn't have to be the same kit, just that it does a similar thing to your key ally), the observation that NZ wanders along seemingly disjointed from its key ally lends itself to the conclusion that I'm most probably correct, even if to a fair degree.
I think it's about time we acknowledged formally that we need a co-ordinated capability plan, because we will not be responding to an event alone.
.....further:
For example, is there an expectation in Canberra for NZ counter-mine warfare?
Is there an expection in Wellington that Australia will do it?
That's an ADF capability issue, whether it's clearing sites in NZ or eastern seaboard Australia.
Someone has to deal with it, will it be the ADF? Who's clearing Australian ports?
Is there an expectation that NZ should be able to provide anti-submarine patrols in the Tasman as well as provide frigate presence in the eastern Pacific? That's an ADF capability issue. Someone has to do it, an OPV can't do it.
Is there an expectation that we can rely on RNZAF strategic airlift to move x number of tonnes to supplement RAAF reach? That's an ADF key ally capability issue. Do they have enough aircraft?
Can the ADF count on NZ tactical helicopters being ready for higher conflict zones as a capability standard, and how many is the agreed number required?
Is there an expectation that your key ally can provide an independent combined arms battalion for amphibious operations? That's a key ADF capability issue.
These are simple random examples of capability issues that key allies should have squared away, have covered. I've written this as ADF issues as an illustration, but it's joint operations and these questions are equally relevant bilaterally.
For example, is there an expectation in Canberra for NZ counter-mine warfare?
Is there an expection in Wellington that Australia will do it?
That's an ADF capability issue, whether it's clearing sites in NZ or eastern seaboard Australia.
Someone has to deal with it, will it be the ADF? Who's clearing Australian ports?
Is there an expectation that NZ should be able to provide anti-submarine patrols in the Tasman as well as provide frigate presence in the eastern Pacific? That's an ADF capability issue. Someone has to do it, an OPV can't do it.
Is there an expectation that we can rely on RNZAF strategic airlift to move x number of tonnes to supplement RAAF reach? That's an ADF key ally capability issue. Do they have enough aircraft?
Can the ADF count on NZ tactical helicopters being ready for higher conflict zones as a capability standard, and how many is the agreed number required?
Is there an expectation that your key ally can provide an independent combined arms battalion for amphibious operations? That's a key ADF capability issue.
These are simple random examples of capability issues that key allies should have squared away, have covered. I've written this as ADF issues as an illustration, but it's joint operations and these questions are equally relevant bilaterally.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
Australia and New Zealand hold very similar, if not identical geopolitical interests. Both seek to maintain a secure South Pacific region in order to maintain sea line of communication with the United States.
The difference in defence spending in my eyes seems to come down to political ideology and the kinds of operations expected of them both. New Zealand is obviously a more left wing nation with it's core geopolitical interest being the South Pacific.
Australia on the other hand must also focus it's interests on the South-East Asia in both counterterrorism and border control means. In addition growing tensions in the SCS mean America (and the QSD?) expects Australia to put more effort into securing the Strait of Malacca against Chinese influence, which is itself altogether another discussion.
In short Australia, as a larger country with more challenges, requires a larger military. Australia at the end of the day is still a regionally small military/economic power.
This is where it comes back to New Zealand. NZ can contribute a very small capability to America in the South Pacific disregarding military access. However NZ can contribute a decent force multiplier to a country the size of Australia, offering a BG whilst Australia generates two or three BG. It seems to be mostly a case of Australia requiring extra effort from NZ, which will likely require instability or a crisis in the South Pacific to wake up the country.
I agree a bipartisan defence agreement should be in place, though unless the South Pacific is concerned/at risk NZ is unlikely to make a big leap in anything force projection wise. This is because such an agreement primarily benefits Australia.
The difference in defence spending in my eyes seems to come down to political ideology and the kinds of operations expected of them both. New Zealand is obviously a more left wing nation with it's core geopolitical interest being the South Pacific.
Australia on the other hand must also focus it's interests on the South-East Asia in both counterterrorism and border control means. In addition growing tensions in the SCS mean America (and the QSD?) expects Australia to put more effort into securing the Strait of Malacca against Chinese influence, which is itself altogether another discussion.
In short Australia, as a larger country with more challenges, requires a larger military. Australia at the end of the day is still a regionally small military/economic power.
This is where it comes back to New Zealand. NZ can contribute a very small capability to America in the South Pacific disregarding military access. However NZ can contribute a decent force multiplier to a country the size of Australia, offering a BG whilst Australia generates two or three BG. It seems to be mostly a case of Australia requiring extra effort from NZ, which will likely require instability or a crisis in the South Pacific to wake up the country.
I agree a bipartisan defence agreement should be in place, though unless the South Pacific is concerned/at risk NZ is unlikely to make a big leap in anything force projection wise. This is because such an agreement primarily benefits Australia.
I agree with you Buffy9, and I disagree.
Australia may go off in its merry tangents with other partner nations, but defence of Australian waters & the Pacific will never occur without partnership with NZ.
Similarly, the defence of NZ waters will never happen without Australia, the probability of that occurring is somewhat more unlikely due to NZ being so far south. However the probability of NZ involvement et al is unchanged, any interference with Australia/Pacific is of direct relevance and significance to NZ.
I agree, contributions from NZ to Australian efforts is of far greater importance than to a monolith like the US. It's makes the lack of defined co-operation so much more bewildering!
The only reason there is a perception of "greens" power, why NZ is so accustomed to weaker defence allowances is because Australia has not accounted for NZ contributions to the end game, which is reflected in a malaise of NZGovt.
My point previously that the reasonable bulk of the population would expect NZ action in response to an incident I think holds true. It's telling that when there's a relevant reason, the population will respond (same is true in Australia if the scenario is reversed). NZ is not simply defending Nth & Sth islands, its responsive and integral to the wider regional picture. It's a poor indictment that Australia has been asleep at the wheel and let its key ally wander.
Australia may go off in its merry tangents with other partner nations, but defence of Australian waters & the Pacific will never occur without partnership with NZ.
Similarly, the defence of NZ waters will never happen without Australia, the probability of that occurring is somewhat more unlikely due to NZ being so far south. However the probability of NZ involvement et al is unchanged, any interference with Australia/Pacific is of direct relevance and significance to NZ.
I agree, contributions from NZ to Australian efforts is of far greater importance than to a monolith like the US. It's makes the lack of defined co-operation so much more bewildering!
The only reason there is a perception of "greens" power, why NZ is so accustomed to weaker defence allowances is because Australia has not accounted for NZ contributions to the end game, which is reflected in a malaise of NZGovt.
My point previously that the reasonable bulk of the population would expect NZ action in response to an incident I think holds true. It's telling that when there's a relevant reason, the population will respond (same is true in Australia if the scenario is reversed). NZ is not simply defending Nth & Sth islands, its responsive and integral to the wider regional picture. It's a poor indictment that Australia has been asleep at the wheel and let its key ally wander.
I believe that New Zealand would stand alongside Australia if your country was under threat. Any change of NZ's attitude would be if we chose to disagree with A NZUS (A radical Trump decision). NZ has so much in common with Australia (Australasia, Pacific and Antarctica).
At the moment we await a cabinet decision on the Poseidon 8 deal that is expected on Monday. If successful we may be changing course (not before time). Further acquisitions are expected to be announced later this year. Where we have had no defence media coverage of any substance in the past - all of a sudden this last week has publically brought more attention to the inadequacies our defence forces are facing. At the moment it is ticking off the boxes as the procurement decisions are made keeping in mind that the government time line for procurements is expected to be known later this year.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Be good then if the Coalition Govt pushed the Southern Ocean OPV back up the pecking order (as it seems previously to have been pushed back to the early-mid 2020's under National), but with a funding boost (rather than rob Peter to pay Paul by downgrading other higher priority projects in order to bring forward the SOPV).
If the Govt was really serious about its responsibilities in the Southern Ocean (and needing to factor in climate change) they should be looking at the very least to be adding a second identical vessel. Then at times two vessels could be deployed and cover different or adjacent areas. Backed up by P-8A providing extended situational awareness. Would suggest the SOPV('s) would need fairly decent interoperability (links etc).
The two existing Protector OPV's would provide enhanced local & South Pacific taskings etc, until they are replaced in the 2030's.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The same Strategic issue effects both Countries a flare up in the South China Sea that would effect our major Trade Route through Singapore. Shut Singapore and we are both up that Proverbial Creek.
I'm a little puzzled as to what you're saying here... are you suggesting the ADF have been asleep at the wheel and that has led to NZ's pretty 'average' interest in Defence spending? We are independent sovereign nations who simply have very different sized economies and very different strategic considerations. The Aus Govt has been spending up large to actually meet policy objectives whilst the NZ Govt has largely had it head in the sand... eg: ADF capabilities have soared whilst NZDF capabilities have reduced.
The Aus Govt can only do so much in influencing NZ defence commitments... I find it perplexing if you are suggesting Australia is in any way respsonsible for that... am I just reading your posts wrong?
Looking ahead,
I feel the NZ navy will have to consider what is realistic with it's budget as to what sort of fleet it can afford.
Is it possible to actually have a decent Tier one class of ships and in creditable numbers post the ANZAC's.
I feel if you do something you do it properly or not at all.
Given Australia has recognised that big AWD / Hunter class sized ships are the minimum in size required for future blue water missions, it is difficult to see NZ acquiring a creditable minimum of three of this class of vessel.
This is not all bad, maybe NZ could field a future common fleet of say six corvette / light frigate sized ships.The weapons fit could be limited to a medium gun supported by a CIWS on a ship sized to carry and hangar a NH90 sized helicopter. Add a mission bay and spare accommodation of 40 /50 pax and you would have in numbers and quality a fleet that would do the constablatory role and provide options of regional security.
Support this fleet with two small multi purpose supply / amphibious ships and I feel you would have a good low end balanced fleet.
It would be achievable
High end naval war fighting may have to go the way of the ACF.
You can only do so much with so little
Regards S
I feel the NZ navy will have to consider what is realistic with it's budget as to what sort of fleet it can afford.
Is it possible to actually have a decent Tier one class of ships and in creditable numbers post the ANZAC's.
I feel if you do something you do it properly or not at all.
Given Australia has recognised that big AWD / Hunter class sized ships are the minimum in size required for future blue water missions, it is difficult to see NZ acquiring a creditable minimum of three of this class of vessel.
This is not all bad, maybe NZ could field a future common fleet of say six corvette / light frigate sized ships.The weapons fit could be limited to a medium gun supported by a CIWS on a ship sized to carry and hangar a NH90 sized helicopter. Add a mission bay and spare accommodation of 40 /50 pax and you would have in numbers and quality a fleet that would do the constablatory role and provide options of regional security.
Support this fleet with two small multi purpose supply / amphibious ships and I feel you would have a good low end balanced fleet.
It would be achievable
High end naval war fighting may have to go the way of the ACF.
You can only do so much with so little
Regards S
Hi Gibbo
Thank you for your reply and seeking clarification.
Yes, whilst the Aust Defence dept is doing a brilliant job in rejuvenating the ADF (excellent), in simple terms I am saying that the ADF is asleep at the wheel in terms of evolving a mature capability statement that enables the ADF and NZDF to act in concert/supplementary to each other, with commensurate capabilitiy levels.
Barring a cultural shift of biblical proportions, in practical terms the ADF and NZDF will deploy together to protect identical national interests.
NZ govt and population has only a 'defend home islands' mentality because they're allowed to feel disenfranchised from the obvious requirement for inevitable Australian joint operations, why would they bother doing anything more? This is demonstrated by the Australian acceptance of a two-combatant RNZN, that cannot simultaneous provide support to the Tasman shipping lanes (eg: capability support for RAN deployed to the Nth) and a capability defined patrol zone in the South Pacific islands. Soon there will be an extended period when RNZN cannot provide ANY combatants, but this causes no inter-govt concern because there is no capability requirement to account for anyway.
I am amazed and feeling fortunate that the NZ Govt fields what they do, because they could field next to nothing at all.
Why, because the ADF has allowed the NZDF to atrophy from meaningful expected comensurate joint operations capability.
Thank you for your reply and seeking clarification.
Yes, whilst the Aust Defence dept is doing a brilliant job in rejuvenating the ADF (excellent), in simple terms I am saying that the ADF is asleep at the wheel in terms of evolving a mature capability statement that enables the ADF and NZDF to act in concert/supplementary to each other, with commensurate capabilitiy levels.
Barring a cultural shift of biblical proportions, in practical terms the ADF and NZDF will deploy together to protect identical national interests.
NZ govt and population has only a 'defend home islands' mentality because they're allowed to feel disenfranchised from the obvious requirement for inevitable Australian joint operations, why would they bother doing anything more? This is demonstrated by the Australian acceptance of a two-combatant RNZN, that cannot simultaneous provide support to the Tasman shipping lanes (eg: capability support for RAN deployed to the Nth) and a capability defined patrol zone in the South Pacific islands. Soon there will be an extended period when RNZN cannot provide ANY combatants, but this causes no inter-govt concern because there is no capability requirement to account for anyway.
I am amazed and feeling fortunate that the NZ Govt fields what they do, because they could field next to nothing at all.
Why, because the ADF has allowed the NZDF to atrophy from meaningful expected comensurate joint operations capability.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
AND
At this point, I feel obligated to point out that it has been nearly a generation since the end of the Cold War and despite a common history and shared traditions prior to the start of the Cold War, and treaties signed during it, the various AusGov and NZG's have had some very different perspectives and policies, especially with respect to defence. From my perspective, this started to become apparent at least as early as the mid-1980's, before the Cold War was even over, and possibly earlier.
In fact, viewing some of the public comments on the STUFF site, it became readily apparent to me that, for better or worse, that difference in perspective and the impact upon policies had reached and sunk into the public sphere.
From my perspective, it seems as though that perspective is the result of ideology, ignorance, and shallow thinking with all three factors feeding into and magnifying the impact of each other. The end result of a generation or more of such influences is that most Kiwis do not seem to look further than the edge of the NZ EEZ, if they even look that far, when considering New Zealand's strategic environment. Relating to that, it does seem that Kiwis had gotten into the habit of thinking NZ was demonstrating it's good world citizenship by having the NZDF involved in a large number of UN deployments, which IIRC at one point either during or shortly after the Clarke gov't, over 10% of the total NZDF military personnel (active & reserve forces), ~900 personnel, were scattered across the globe on int'l deployments and for some reason, the number of different deployments which come to mind is 27. As later gov'ts came to realise neither that scale or scope of int'l involvement was sustainable. As an aside, from my POV a token Kiwi presence might have contributed to NZ's diplomatic reputation, but it would not realistically improve international order much, if at all. It would be better, and more effective to have fewer deployments which are larger in size and therefore able to actually achieve a proper outcome.
What I found most interesting about this most recent strategic policy statement that it seems as though finally, some members of gov't seem to be acknowledging that there are both current and potential threats to NZ's lines of communication which exist outside of both NZ home waters, and the EEZ. It IMO unfortunate that that recognition seems tied to NZ interests or concerns with respect to contributing to international order, but that to me is far better continuing to subscribe to the false notion of a 'benign strategic environment' when NZ is so dependent on international trade as part of the global economy.
With respect to the overall capabilities of the ADF and NZDF, the two forces should continue to work and train together to maintain familiarity and interoperability, but the forces themselves need to be maintained separately with respect to their capabilities, as the policies of the two different nations' gov'ts can, have, and will continue to be different. There have and will be times that one gov't will decide to involve itself in some matter, or participate in an int'l incident or deployment, that the other gov't will want nothing to do with. Any arrangement where one force is reliant upon the other for a capability can lead to either a gov't being drawn into something that it wants no part of, or enable a gov't to keep the other out. Either situation would involve a loss of sovereignty, and I do not have the impression that either Australia or New Zealand wishes to merge into a unified nation at this point.
I agree, one can not be 'reliant' on the other.
A capability requirement would be a minimal standard to ensure comensurate forces are worthwhile available in a joint forces setting.
I'm not suggesting they merge either, that is a more literal interpretation.
Whilst nation-A might venture independently from nation-B, if either Aust or NZ direct interests are militarily pressured, both will inevitably become involved. I simply do not see either remaining idle at that point!
What is required is an understanding that nation-A can provide meaningful support to a further deployed nation-B.
A joint forces commander can rely on similar predictable assets from an inevitable key ally, instead of simply from the bigger ally, because that's the predetermined mature plan.
There is a fallacy here that needs to be addressed. Affordability. New Zealand can afford a high end military - full stop, end of story.
Comparatively, it has a vibrant, strong economy, that produces surpluses, has a low govt GDP debt ration of around 20% compared to Australia at 40% and dramatically less than Western Europe for example which have some countries over the 100% mark.
The issue is that for the last 25 years NZ has deliberately chosen a political baseline of around 1% of GDP on Defence. Sometimes a little more often a little less. Even with its $20B over 15 years spend up of the last Government to replace major items defence spending was going to track under 1% of GDP.
Todj - don't make the mistake of extrapolating idiotic comments on the Stuff website to reality. It is after all the low information persons twitter. Those without reality don't reflect reality.
The defence mantra used to be for both countries "self reliance in partnership." It worked well for decades when both NZ and OZ consistently spent well over 2% of GDP on Defence.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Realistically, the ADF and/or AusGov has very little it can do to 'force' NZ or the NZDF to change their national defence policies. Pretty much the options would be limited to invading NZ to take over, or reducing/cutting diplomatic ties until either the NZG increases/expands the NZDF capabilities, or at least recognizes that there is a much wider scope of threats which exist beyond the area NZ has considered.
To illustrate this sort of myopic view that has existed in NZ, at one point within the last decade or so the Greens had as one of their central defence planks, a policy of "passive non-compliance" in the face of invasion. Now granted the Greens are not and were not one of the two major NZ parties, they are large enough given how seats are distributed in NZ politics, to have a 'seat at the table' in the formation of a gov't. Now consider, fully consider, what the implications of a policy of 'passive non-compliance' fully means.
Perhaps I am too pragmatic a person, but to me, the sort of ideology required to consider such a policy viable is so irrational as to be divorced from reality and border on the edges of a mental illness. And yes, I do have some actual experience interacting with people with mental illnesses.
Until there is a greater recognition within both the NZG and general populace of what can constitute a threat to everyday Kiwi life, and where these threats can manifest themselves, then the resources and support the NZDF would require to be an overall more capable force just will not be there. Those self-imposed blinders need to be removed, and at least some of the ideology needs to be changed.
In terms of joint operations, the two forces can and do work together, but absent a more common perspective, it will be difficult for two nations to agree upon what could be considered a military pressure where a joint response is appropriate, or even just a single nation's response wit the other providing a capability coverage elsewhere. This again comes down to a difference in policies. A very good example being one I mentioned recently about the NZG of the day taking issue with Air NZ doing paid charter work, supporting an ADF deployment in the Mideast. Yes, the NZG was the majority shareholder of Air NZ following a bailout IIRC, but Air NZ was being run as a for-profit commercial (as opposed to governmental) venture, but the NZG directly interfering in business decisions the airline was making, due to a policy difference between the two nations.
The obvious common defence threats are easy, but it is the less obvious, and unfortunately more likely threats, which will present problems.
NZG opted for 1% GDP defence allowance because the NZDF exists notionally, by NZ (and the ADF) as an isolated entity.
Sure it trains with allies, like its biggest- Australia, but it's mission is not intrinsic to anyone else but itself, because its allowed to be so.
In the wider geopolitical context it's not answerable to any defined standard, so they settle for 1%.
I accept economies of scale effects, but defence sector/ industries can also provide a return to its economy too, it's not a one-way flush of cash is it?
Sure it trains with allies, like its biggest- Australia, but it's mission is not intrinsic to anyone else but itself, because its allowed to be so.
In the wider geopolitical context it's not answerable to any defined standard, so they settle for 1%.
I accept economies of scale effects, but defence sector/ industries can also provide a return to its economy too, it's not a one-way flush of cash is it?