By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Discussion in 'Geostrategic Issues' started by NZLAV, Apr 14, 2007.
Credit where credit is due. Well done Ron Mark.
Aaahhh! Now I know why your PM has labeled it the “Well-being” Budget. I even saw it printed on the book cover held in her very hands.
Does this mean our navy receives half the funds of the army and air force each receive?
Yes at present. Because we are not operating 2 Anzacs and an AOR their budgeted outputs are more limited. The Navy being smaller than the other two has always ranked 3rd in appropriations. When the Anzacs and Aotearoa are home you can add another couple of hundred million to their M22 output appropriation.
Is there a link to the source material, Mr C?
There was 40South but it magically disappeared on Tuesday evening.
There is a link at the bottom of the article I posted on the previous page that contains all the leaked info. Here is a direct link if you are still interested.
I believe the official document is due to be released in a few hours though so you may be better off waiting for that.
Thanks for that link. The Treasury fixed their web bungle pretty quick. There are probably other links to this out there as well. What will be interesting is how much difference there is between the discovered documents and the announcement today. The details regarding defence will be interesting.
One wonders if there are any of those "low hanging fruit" capabilities accounted for such as a couple more AW109's or KA-350's in here as well as the big ticket items. Probably not.
Expanding on existing capability does make a lot of sense, as it seems a pretty significant portion of acquisition costs these days is around infrastructure, training and introduction into service costs. A few of the new maritime tactical transport NH90's to deploy on HMNZS Canterbury and HMNZS Aotearoa (and perhaps a SOF version) would make a lot of sense too. I am not sure how much detail we will get today but all will be revealed in due course I suppose.
I was also curious to see there is $568M capital injection listed outside of new capability allocations (cf. $155M last year). That's a pretty significant boost. Any idea's as to what this might be for?
I just wonder if the DCP will be released today or tomorrow. We can but live in hope.
OK so just $744m on new capabilities which are basically the P-8A, Manawanui, Radio refresh, NH90 sim, & Protected Mobility. Will get another $852m next year and $704m the year after that.
New CapEx injection amounts are OK - but they need to get some of those low hanging fruit capabilities - those $10-50m projects over the line to enhance greater capability.
NZDF get an increase of $142 million for the year, however they have cut funding for:
Operations Contributing to New Zealand's Security, Stability and Interests MCA (M22) -The single overarching purpose of this appropriation is the employment of New Zealand's Armed Forces overseas at the Government's direction from $59.8 million to $26.3 million. The cuts are:
decreased funding of $28.136 million for the successful completion in 2018/19 of NZDF's support, through the provision of training, security, engineering, and supervision, for United Nations and Multi-national force operations in Korea and across the Middle East
decreased funding of $4.748 million for the completion in 2019/20 of deployments to the Middle East for operations that support Maritime Security, and
decreased funding of $586,000 due to reductions in cost recoveries as a result of reduced services provided by NZDF to foreign militaries.
So it looks like they intend pulling out of the Iraqi training program and possibly the Afghani one as well. There is no funding in the 2019 / 20 financial year or forecast for the subsequent years for any deployments to United Nations, Multi-National and Middle East Operations.
They've increased the capital charge funding by $10.8 million to cover the increase in the charge by as a result of the P-8 acquisition.
Otherwise, no real gains for NZDF and it appears a withdrawal from overseas deployments.
Budget Documents by Vote
Mr C can just refresh my memory, the protected mobility is that just the armoured LOV replacement, with all the announcements across defence globally I’ve forgotten what the NZ requirements are
To a certain extent yes. Rather than the one size fits all approach the PMC project will look at equipping the LTG's and CATG's with a range of capabilities. The PMC project will roll over a numbers of years including the NZLAV replacement and/or upgrade later next decade.
First cab off the rank is the Armoured LOV.
The philosophy of having the right tools for the role rather than having for fiscal efficiency reasons a one or two platform solution is something I agree with whole heartedly.
For example the FAMC has found it so difficult to get a happy medium to cover all the required tasking range from a choice of two fixed wing aircraft platforms. Because of the alleged efficiencies sticking to a strictly 2 platform solution.
Have governments/defence strategists in NZ ever considered changing the balance of resource allocation for their defence force?
Some comments a few posts back regarding the money allocated, Army and Airforce were considered one and two and navy a distant third. I am trying very hard to see the logic of this when NZ’s geography and sovereignty are considered. An island nation with heavy responsibilities for its Pacific neighbours and protectorates surely needs ships, those little units of sovereign force “keeping the peace” in her area of interest.
I get that the NZ Army have a huge tradition of excellence serving the British Crown in two world wars where they gained a fearsome reputation but surely that’s in the past and we’ve moved on, it shouldn’t influence modern thinking.
Anyway, these musings come from a cos across the ditch and I would love to hear your thoughts.
I think there is a lot that NZ has that doesnt need to be. The air force should really be disbanded with tactical/strategic aircraft folded into the army, ASW aircraft folded into No. 6 squadron RNZN and if possible try and set up a deal with the ADF to train the pilots in Australia using ADF assets rather then putting money into such a small fleet.
When it comes to funding without the RNZAF it should be a 60/40 split between Army and Navy.
MOD Edit: Anyone suggesting annexing or invading sovereign countries even in jest is not acceptable. Offending comment deleted.
Apologies to the community, Was in jest however will make sure not to do so again.
@OPSSG made a comment on his quite informative post in the South China Sea thread earlier today and I quote it here:
"In fact, there is very, very limited sympathy within ASEAN for a country that chose to disband it's air combat capability in 2005 by budget choice, with a navy that has 2 corvettes being built in South Korea. In late 2016 the Philippines ordered two 2,600 ton corvettes, to be in service by 2020 to 2021. Beyond the fact that the Philippine Senate voted not to renew the lease to US bases in 1991 (resulting in their closure), we also have to look back to some events in the 2003 to 2004 period for another example of this lack of reliability by the Philippines."
To be frank, I would put NZ in the same category as the Philippines on both counts, especially as view from Australia, the US, UK, and ASEAN. So speak as an ex RNZAF bod if the RNZAF was disbanded as suggested by vonnoobie, I would not be totally surprised. Although the funding should be 60% RNZN and 40% Army because the RNZN would have higher tech requirements (hence more expensive) in C5ISR than the Army. We actually don't require a large army and it could be restructured to a marines type CONOPS & TOE etc., because realistically we aren't going to be chasing three Soviet tank armies back to Mother Russia through the Fulda Gap. So my view is something based on the USMC or similar, with an amphib and possibly an airborne foci.
I have to say I agree entirely with the sentiments of @ngatimozart and @ASSAIL. That NZ's defence force is currently Army centric is primarily as a result of it's history as far as I understand. Given our geographic isolation and large maritime domain it makes a lot of sense to place more emphasis on our Air Force and Navy. In the unlikely event that anyone ever attempts to invade NZ, the war would likely already be lost if they ever managed to land troops on the ground.
Regarding the budget: It seems defence spending was significantly scaled back compared to the documents leaked earlier in the week. I hope this was not a result of Mr. Bridges attempts to spin the wellbeing budget as tanks > teachers. I have to wonder if they decided to defer some defence spending announcements (such as the FAMC) to a later date, as I doubt they would have cancelled them entirely as a result of the leak.
EDIT: It looks like all the leaked defence spending details are still there (hidden in supplementary estimates), so defence is still getting a big boost. I could not find any new acquisition details beyond those outlined by @MrConservative above though. I guess we'll have to wait for the capability review.