NZDF General discussion thread

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Overview of the Vote – Defence Force

The Minister of Defence is responsible for Defence Force appropriations in Vote Defence Force,
totalling just over $3,312 million for the 2018/19 financial year ($4,166 million for the 2019/20
financial year)

This includes just over $2,670 million ($2,837 million) for departmental output expenses covering
the following:

 a total of just under $2,164 million on Air ($840 million) ($907 million), Army ($871 million)
($916 million) and Navy ($453 million) ($493 million) capabilities prepared for joint operations to
provide the Government with a range of military forces to protect and advance the security and
interests of New Zealand. These are held at appropriate levels of capability and preparedness to
protect New Zealand's territorial sovereignty and to contribute to regional and global security
efforts. Most of these forces will also contribute to a range of services to other government
departments and the New Zealand community when not committed to operations overseas, and

 a total of just over $506 million ($521 million) on Multi-Category Appropriations (MCA) for Advice
to the Government, Operations Contributing to New Zealand's Security, Stability and Interests,
and the Protection of New Zealand and New Zealanders.

Of the total output expenses, just under $17 million ($19 million) is expected to be funded from
third-party revenue (Revenue Department and Revenue Other) in 2018/19. The remainder is funded
by Revenue Crown.

There is a capital expenditure appropriation of just over $641 million ($1,330 million) for the
purchase of assets.

The Minister of Defence is also responsible for a capital injection of nearly $155 million ($568
million) to the New Zealand Defence Force.

The Minister for Veterans is responsible for Veterans' Affairs appropriations in Vote Defence Force
totalling just over $128 million ($125 million) for the 2018/19 financial year.
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.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
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.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
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.

http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1905/Overview_of_the_Votes.pdf

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.
 

milliGal

Member
No problem.

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?
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
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.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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
 

t68

Well-Known Member
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
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t68

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
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.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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.
@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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t68

milliGal

Member
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
Top