LOL there's a good reason for that... they'll happily take on any spending cuts offered! Defence doesn't rate with any NZ Party other than the brief tenure of Ron Mark and any incoming Govt will have the hangover from Covid spending to manage.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
LOL there's a good reason for that... they'll happily take on any spending cuts offered! Defence doesn't rate with any NZ Party other than the brief tenure of Ron Mark and any incoming Govt will have the hangover from Covid spending to manage.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Sacré bleu even the French can now "bomb" us from Paris (or our neighbouring "back yard") if we upset them over cheese, sauvignon blanc or butter exports to the EU!
Quick someone better inform our government that we need a solution involving detecting, intercepting and prosecuting!
Because they can't be bothered with such mundane matters, I suggest we get crafty
and invoke the Principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as that is sacrosanct to many including our govt (after all wasn't the Treaty signed by Chiefs with the UK in 1840 to beat the French striking their own governing arrangement?)!
Nowadays (govt) failure to adhere to supporting the Principles is a very serious matter - legal action, apologies and compensation can be the outcome (I'm actually being serious saying this bit)!
Hat tip to Kato.
Quick someone better inform our government that we need a solution involving detecting, intercepting and prosecuting!
Because they can't be bothered with such mundane matters, I suggest we get crafty
and invoke the Principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as that is sacrosanct to many including our govt (after all wasn't the Treaty signed by Chiefs with the UK in 1840 to beat the French striking their own governing arrangement?)!Nowadays (govt) failure to adhere to supporting the Principles is a very serious matter - legal action, apologies and compensation can be the outcome (I'm actually being serious saying this bit)!
Hat tip to Kato.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
In other more serious news Germany commits funding to acquire five Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft.
What always interests/alarms me when such articles appear is the further warnings that P-8A production is due to wind down in 2023/24.
I suggest if the Labour Government wishes to "put their stamp" on Defence, that they consider purchasing at least another two P-8A aircraft for the NZDF, in order to sustain deployments to support our friends and allies in the wider Indo-Pacific region ... but also ensure that NZDF has enough aircraft available to also support local/regional (South Pacific/Southern Ocean) taskings. A lesson learned from WW2 in which when fighting capabilities were sent overseas in some instances local defence suffered.
Politically it would be the the icing on the cake for the Government and the Prime Minister ... surely would guarantee her a meeting with the POTUS (and perhaps further FTA talks)!
The four P-8A's on order for the RNZAF are not enough ... especially when the RAAF recognised this and ordered additional aircraft themselves (with three options available still to be fulfilled). The original cost included infrastructure development so any new acquisitions will be for the aircraft itself and training etc, somewhat lesser. Perhaps funding could be found from the EMAC's project (sorry Gibbo!) or could be found anyway if the govt is proposing to delay other projects?
After all lessons learned from the C-17 White Tail acquisition debacle ... leave things too late and the opportunity is lost forever.
What always interests/alarms me when such articles appear is the further warnings that P-8A production is due to wind down in 2023/24.
I suggest if the Labour Government wishes to "put their stamp" on Defence, that they consider purchasing at least another two P-8A aircraft for the NZDF, in order to sustain deployments to support our friends and allies in the wider Indo-Pacific region ... but also ensure that NZDF has enough aircraft available to also support local/regional (South Pacific/Southern Ocean) taskings. A lesson learned from WW2 in which when fighting capabilities were sent overseas in some instances local defence suffered.
Politically it would be the the icing on the cake for the Government and the Prime Minister ... surely would guarantee her a meeting with the POTUS (and perhaps further FTA talks)!
The four P-8A's on order for the RNZAF are not enough ... especially when the RAAF recognised this and ordered additional aircraft themselves (with three options available still to be fulfilled). The original cost included infrastructure development so any new acquisitions will be for the aircraft itself and training etc, somewhat lesser. Perhaps funding could be found from the EMAC's project (sorry Gibbo!) or could be found anyway if the govt is proposing to delay other projects?
After all lessons learned from the C-17 White Tail acquisition debacle ... leave things too late and the opportunity is lost forever.
Hey I'd have no issues at all with a couple of extra P8A even if was at the expense of the EMAC project... the latter to me is more about plugging the gap of having too few P8 to start with. Alas we all know extra P8 ain't going to happen..and who knows about EMAC now.
Just imagine with a tinge of melancholy that during and since the 1990’s / Post Cold War period until now the NZDF / New Zealand Government had followed through with the major projects that had come out of the White Papers and had not taken so much of a fiscal and more importantly an ideological razor to properly resourcing the Defence Force:
Bought all 4 Anzac Class frigates as ordered and had them properly fitted with the same systems as the ones delivered to the RAN.
Replaced the 16 Strikemasters with 18 BAE Hawk 100’s as was the RNZAF preference rather than the MB-339’s.
Bought in 1995 the HMAS Tobruk then offered by the RAN for $58m including refit instead of the HMNZS Charles Upham.
Stuck with the Project Sirius upgrades for the six P-3K’s.
Stuck with the Lease to Buy deal with the US for 28 F-16 MLU’s. Right about now we would be upgrading them to Viper Block 70 Standard.
Bought 69 new Light Armoured Vehicles and 12 Fire Support Vehicles as approved by Cabinet in 1998.
Replaced the 5 C-130H’s and the 4 Andover’s that were withdrawn in 1998 with the 8 C-130J’s piggybacking on the RAAF deal in 1999.
Replaced the Moa Class IPC’s with 3 OPV’s and 5 IPV’s as recommended by the Maritime Forces Review in 2000.
Bought three 2nd tier twin engine maritime patrol aircraft (the Q200 was suggested) as recommended by the 2001 Maritime Patrol Review, noting the capability gap of not replacing the F-27 Friendships in that role in the mid 1990’s.
Bought the 2 Boeing 767-219ER’s that Air New Zealand offered them in 2003 instead of the B757.
Either ordered like for like the UH-60L in 2006 to replace the 15 Huey’s instead of the NH90 TTH or at least bought enough NH90’s (10) and AW109’s (10) as recommended as the optimal requirement.
Replaced the HMNZS Resolution on schedule in 2012 without replacement.
Replaced the HMNZS Endeavour on schedule in 2013 and not delaying it for years.
And of course for good measure bought three C-17’s in 2015 as per the cabinet paper and followed that up with six P-8's in the pipeline.
We’d probably be about alright. Now where’s my Delorean with the flux capacitor.
Bought all 4 Anzac Class frigates as ordered and had them properly fitted with the same systems as the ones delivered to the RAN.
Replaced the 16 Strikemasters with 18 BAE Hawk 100’s as was the RNZAF preference rather than the MB-339’s.
Bought in 1995 the HMAS Tobruk then offered by the RAN for $58m including refit instead of the HMNZS Charles Upham.
Stuck with the Project Sirius upgrades for the six P-3K’s.
Stuck with the Lease to Buy deal with the US for 28 F-16 MLU’s. Right about now we would be upgrading them to Viper Block 70 Standard.
Bought 69 new Light Armoured Vehicles and 12 Fire Support Vehicles as approved by Cabinet in 1998.
Replaced the 5 C-130H’s and the 4 Andover’s that were withdrawn in 1998 with the 8 C-130J’s piggybacking on the RAAF deal in 1999.
Replaced the Moa Class IPC’s with 3 OPV’s and 5 IPV’s as recommended by the Maritime Forces Review in 2000.
Bought three 2nd tier twin engine maritime patrol aircraft (the Q200 was suggested) as recommended by the 2001 Maritime Patrol Review, noting the capability gap of not replacing the F-27 Friendships in that role in the mid 1990’s.
Bought the 2 Boeing 767-219ER’s that Air New Zealand offered them in 2003 instead of the B757.
Either ordered like for like the UH-60L in 2006 to replace the 15 Huey’s instead of the NH90 TTH or at least bought enough NH90’s (10) and AW109’s (10) as recommended as the optimal requirement.
Replaced the HMNZS Resolution on schedule in 2012 without replacement.
Replaced the HMNZS Endeavour on schedule in 2013 and not delaying it for years.
And of course for good measure bought three C-17’s in 2015 as per the cabinet paper and followed that up with six P-8's in the pipeline.
We’d probably be about alright. Now where’s my Delorean with the flux capacitor.
Well if we had bought Tobroken in 1995 we would've been looking for a replacement probably around 2010, so that would've been an LPD or LHD
We'd also be starting to think about replacing the Hawks and I agree they would've been a better acquisition than the MB339s that we got. Off hand can't remember how many we lost because the engines ate something they shouldn't have.
Dead right about the frigates, C-130J's, C-17As, and the P-8A.
We could've used the LAV for the fire support role back then, by just looking for another turret or going with the Italian Centuro, which I believe is pretty nifty.
We'd also be starting to think about replacing the Hawks and I agree they would've been a better acquisition than the MB339s that we got. Off hand can't remember how many we lost because the engines ate something they shouldn't have.
Dead right about the frigates, C-130J's, C-17As, and the P-8A.
We could've used the LAV for the fire support role back then, by just looking for another turret or going with the Italian Centuro, which I believe is pretty nifty.
Only one was lost (6465) and originally it was going to be restored to museum status until Hellen made a lot more available that did not require any work.
Following on from post #5707 above in the context of what should have been followed through per DWP's and DCP's over the last 25 years the NZDF would have probably looked more like this in 2021 - yes there is likely to be some variances but the general contrast to what we have ended up with now as a yard stick is quite stark.
NZ Army - Business as usual per DWP's / DCP's in a replacement sense per vehicles / equipment other than 69 NZLAV's / 12 Fire Support Vehicles. Änd in this Wednesday morning quarterback mode - I am assuming that with adults in charge they would have also acquired the Bushmaster earlier and not the armoured Pinzer.
RNZN - 4 upgraded Anzac Class Frigates, 3 OPV's + 5 IPV's (chances are that they would soon lose 3 IPV's and replace them with a SOPV per Harry DeWolf Class), 1 LHD/LPD (With plans to add a further enhanced sealift capability this decade), Aotearoa AOR, Manawanui DSV, and Resolution II (Being the long wanted proper multi-role LOSV envisaged).
RNZAF - In Strike 22 F-16V Block 70 (With that project underway), 18 BAE Hawk (with the likely replacement LIFT project being the FA-50), air mobility 8 C-130J, 3 C-17 (with the retention of at least one B767 in the Pax/VIP role as per cabinet paper or leased per the VFM). In rotary 10 NH-90 + 10 A109-LUH or 15 UH-60L + 5 A109LUH with 8 SH-2G(I) (which would likely be soon replaced with the MH-60R or have already been). In the maritime domain 6 P-3K2's (to be replaced by 6 P-8A's) with 3 possibly leased Dash-8 200MP similar to the OZ border watch aircraft (which would be soon replaced in the EMAC project). In training 5 KA-350 (leased in the air crew training role as at one stage they did lease 5 KA-200's) and the
11 T-6C Texan II.
On reflection that is pretty close to where we should be in 2021 with respect to the required "tools of the trade" we will need at a minimum to face the geo-strategic security challenges over the next 15 - 20 years.
NZ Army - Business as usual per DWP's / DCP's in a replacement sense per vehicles / equipment other than 69 NZLAV's / 12 Fire Support Vehicles. Änd in this Wednesday morning quarterback mode - I am assuming that with adults in charge they would have also acquired the Bushmaster earlier and not the armoured Pinzer.
RNZN - 4 upgraded Anzac Class Frigates, 3 OPV's + 5 IPV's (chances are that they would soon lose 3 IPV's and replace them with a SOPV per Harry DeWolf Class), 1 LHD/LPD (With plans to add a further enhanced sealift capability this decade), Aotearoa AOR, Manawanui DSV, and Resolution II (Being the long wanted proper multi-role LOSV envisaged).
RNZAF - In Strike 22 F-16V Block 70 (With that project underway), 18 BAE Hawk (with the likely replacement LIFT project being the FA-50), air mobility 8 C-130J, 3 C-17 (with the retention of at least one B767 in the Pax/VIP role as per cabinet paper or leased per the VFM). In rotary 10 NH-90 + 10 A109-LUH or 15 UH-60L + 5 A109LUH with 8 SH-2G(I) (which would likely be soon replaced with the MH-60R or have already been). In the maritime domain 6 P-3K2's (to be replaced by 6 P-8A's) with 3 possibly leased Dash-8 200MP similar to the OZ border watch aircraft (which would be soon replaced in the EMAC project). In training 5 KA-350 (leased in the air crew training role as at one stage they did lease 5 KA-200's) and the
11 T-6C Texan II.
On reflection that is pretty close to where we should be in 2021 with respect to the required "tools of the trade" we will need at a minimum to face the geo-strategic security challenges over the next 15 - 20 years.
The only correction from the above would be that we would need more T6's and less BAC Hawks due to more pilots being needed and non strike pilots not needing high speed training in the Hawks due to this being achieved by the T6's far more economically. I would say 12 Hawks and 18 T6's would be a better mix, though the strike ability of the extra Hawk's would be welcome.
The govt is going to change the law to allow for the stopping, searching and arrest of vessels in international waters. About time.
www.rnz.co.nz
Vessels in international waters: Agencies to gain powers to stop, search, detain
Parliament has introduced a bill that gives agencies powers to stop any suspected serious criminal offending on ships in international waters.
www.rnz.co.nz
My quick scan of the Bill before the House confirms it as such in terms of extra territorial jurisdiction - the requirement for clearance from the vessels flag authorities before any boarding ect. Where it does have legal jurisdiction tightening up the law is a good thing though.
To think, we could be having a professional discussion about what model of F-35 or long-range anti-ship missiles should be next. The boys/girls of 75 would have most likely deployed to the sandpit, multiple times. Our Ozi cousins would respect us rather than be embarrassed for us and ASEAN would value our thought bubbles about their region.
Possibly most importantly, the NZDF adults would have decades of operational experiences to shape their strategic discussions with NZ GOTD and fights with Treasury. Instead, they are max'ed out justifying their ever-reducing maritime capabilities and hemorrhaging professional mastery of air power.
Helen really did make a difference.
It appears that the government are going to stick with the $20 billion CAPEX in the DCP but are just going to push most of it out past 2030. That's about as useful as tits on a bull because most, if not all of the expenditure detailed in the DCP is required sooner rather than later. Most of it has already been pushed out to the right already, in some cases multiple times.
www.stuff.co.nz
Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
That sand is getting deeperIt appears that the government are going to stick with the $20 billion CAPEX in the DCP but are just going to push most of it out past 2030. That's about as useful as tits on a bull because most, if not all of the expenditure detailed in the DCP is required sooner rather than later. Most of it has already been pushed out to the right already, in some cases multiple times.
Stuff
More like quick sand and their necks are getting long, just like the moa. They were stupid birds too.
Hmm, well that sounds a little more encouraging I guess. I had been worried about what they might mean by putting 'Labour's stamp' on Defence... there goes the Frigates me thought! I am however curious that rather than making everyone wait till later in the year the DefMin has now seen the need to front-foot the discussion with a rather 'defensive' (pun unavoidable!) statement that it won't mean wholsesale cuts... that smacks of someone getting under the Govt's skin about what they're intending and given it clearly doesn't seem to be the opposition (if we still have one!)... so maybe there's been grumblings from across the Tasman!It appears that the government are going to stick with the $20 billion CAPEX in the DCP but are just going to push most of it out past 2030. That's about as useful as tits on a bull because most, if not all of the expenditure detailed in the DCP is required sooner rather than later. Most of it has already been pushed out to the right already, in some cases multiple times.
Stuff
I don't know what New Zealand press has been drinking but the 'lovies' have suddenly had some sort of rush to the head and have been actually doing neutral-ish Defence reporting.
www.rnz.co.nz
First, there is the Red Line podcast. IMHO actually worthwhile listening to. Sir Key is an interesting cat. Alike with most polies he has a reasonable ego and his errors in Geopolitics can't negate his many other economic achievements but am I the first to think: yep, you are an idiot (within the interview he states that he isn't). The fact that he knows he is better than the other FVEY leaders who have swung around, against CCP, indicates the size of said ego. I'm guessing that for whatever reason his national security briefings while PM were not given his full attention.
www.rnz.co.nz
Second, out of the same podcast comes US Gen McMasters warnings. "I don't think it's in any country's interests to give the CCP coercive power over your economy: object lesson is Australia right now." Very similar to what Minister Mahuta has officially stated in a diplomatic and slightly Te Maori confusing way.
Third, is Minister Henare and his thoughts this week that have already been discussed here. Some good spinning from COVID cuts and 'Labour stamp' to now just 'Delays'. I'm not really sure how the media have missed these delays have such an operational capability effect.
www.rnz.co.nz
Finally, this long Opinion piece by Mr Bryce Edwards. Neutral-ish, but because this is Aoteroa the media have a target fixation on Peace, anti-US/the orange one, how wonderful and safe we are in the South Pacific and everyone in the world loves us. Within, there is a relevant reference to Simon Ewing-Jarvies writings: "... can accept, also, that the New Zealand public is naïve and complacent about threats to this country and choose to do something about that. Not everyone loves Kiwis."
My question for the better-informed forum members, please: unlike Simon Ewing-Jarvie, I assume that measuring annual defence expenditure against GDP is a useful if blunt, metric to use? Certainly, it appears more relevant than Labour and National quoting $B spending over decades. It does for example underscore the lack of expenditure over the last decades of "benign strategic environment" and provides an immediate goal. I totally understand that having the money is just the first step and you actually need to spend the resources in a coherent way. However, it does, for example, provides a comparison to other nations like Australia or the NATO average/goals.
If so, for all its simplification why does the media not use it?
Red Line
Can we walk the thin line between what some see as an evil empire and others as our greatest economic opportunity? A four-part series investigating China's growing influence in New Zealand.
www.rnz.co.nz
First, there is the Red Line podcast. IMHO actually worthwhile listening to. Sir Key is an interesting cat. Alike with most polies he has a reasonable ego and his errors in Geopolitics can't negate his many other economic achievements but am I the first to think: yep, you are an idiot (within the interview he states that he isn't). The fact that he knows he is better than the other FVEY leaders who have swung around, against CCP, indicates the size of said ego. I'm guessing that for whatever reason his national security briefings while PM were not given his full attention.
NZ risks giving China 'coercive power' over economy - US General
The former US National Security Advisor is warning New Zealand over its economic reliance on China and says we must decide between 'sovereignty and servitude'.
www.rnz.co.nz
Second, out of the same podcast comes US Gen McMasters warnings. "I don't think it's in any country's interests to give the CCP coercive power over your economy: object lesson is Australia right now." Very similar to what Minister Mahuta has officially stated in a diplomatic and slightly Te Maori confusing way.
Third, is Minister Henare and his thoughts this week that have already been discussed here. Some good spinning from COVID cuts and 'Labour stamp' to now just 'Delays'. I'm not really sure how the media have missed these delays have such an operational capability effect.
Opinion: Best defence or giving offence? Questions about military spending
Labour's spending up big on the military, but not everyone's happy about that, writes Bryce Edwards.
www.rnz.co.nz
Finally, this long Opinion piece by Mr Bryce Edwards. Neutral-ish, but because this is Aoteroa the media have a target fixation on Peace, anti-US/the orange one, how wonderful and safe we are in the South Pacific and everyone in the world loves us. Within, there is a relevant reference to Simon Ewing-Jarvies writings: "... can accept, also, that the New Zealand public is naïve and complacent about threats to this country and choose to do something about that. Not everyone loves Kiwis."
My question for the better-informed forum members, please: unlike Simon Ewing-Jarvie, I assume that measuring annual defence expenditure against GDP is a useful if blunt, metric to use? Certainly, it appears more relevant than Labour and National quoting $B spending over decades. It does for example underscore the lack of expenditure over the last decades of "benign strategic environment" and provides an immediate goal. I totally understand that having the money is just the first step and you actually need to spend the resources in a coherent way. However, it does, for example, provides a comparison to other nations like Australia or the NATO average/goals.
If so, for all its simplification why does the media not use it?
I have a problem with John Key's assessments now because IMHO he's tainted when he makes statements like he did in this article:
John Key says China's human rights issues shouldn't change economic bond, as he receives annual Christmas cards - NZ Herald
I am always sceptical of anything that Bryce Edward's writes because he's a notorious lefty and no friend of NZDF, which doesn't mean that I haven't read his article. I did yesterday and went searching for links etc. It's where I got the link in my post above WRT the Defence Minister's reasons for pushing the expenditure further out to the right. Like I said it's rubbish, pure and simple.
I haven’t listened to the Red Line podcast yet but it's on my must do list.
Yes measuring defence expenditure as a % / GDP is a tad blunt tool, but it appears to be the most commonly used metric. Some argue that PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) is a better metric to measure it by and it first glance I would agree. However I have seen an argument that states that for some countries with smaller or larger economies either metric shouldn't apply because it would give a distorted measure of defence expenditure requirements. In a country with a small GDP the 2% metric or equivalent PPP, most likely would not provide enough funds to provide an adequate defence force, so a greater expenditure of GDP will be required in order to provide an appropriate or desired defence force. Conversely a country with a large GDP may not need to expend 2% GDP or equivalent PPP on defence because the amount is more than adequate to provide for its defence needs. I believe Germany currently fits this criteria.
The media probably don't use it because they don't understand it, but who knows. Kiwi media are basically lazy and ill-informed where defence is concerned.
John Key says China's human rights issues shouldn't change economic bond, as he receives annual Christmas cards - NZ Herald
I am always sceptical of anything that Bryce Edward's writes because he's a notorious lefty and no friend of NZDF, which doesn't mean that I haven't read his article. I did yesterday and went searching for links etc. It's where I got the link in my post above WRT the Defence Minister's reasons for pushing the expenditure further out to the right. Like I said it's rubbish, pure and simple.
I haven’t listened to the Red Line podcast yet but it's on my must do list.
Yes measuring defence expenditure as a % / GDP is a tad blunt tool, but it appears to be the most commonly used metric. Some argue that PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) is a better metric to measure it by and it first glance I would agree. However I have seen an argument that states that for some countries with smaller or larger economies either metric shouldn't apply because it would give a distorted measure of defence expenditure requirements. In a country with a small GDP the 2% metric or equivalent PPP, most likely would not provide enough funds to provide an adequate defence force, so a greater expenditure of GDP will be required in order to provide an appropriate or desired defence force. Conversely a country with a large GDP may not need to expend 2% GDP or equivalent PPP on defence because the amount is more than adequate to provide for its defence needs. I believe Germany currently fits this criteria.
The media probably don't use it because they don't understand it, but who knows. Kiwi media are basically lazy and ill-informed where defence is concerned.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From my POV, reporting the Vote Defence as a percentage of GDP does not make much of a difference, which might be why NZ media do not make much of it. I am uncertain as to why it does not make much difference, I suspect it is for either of two reasons. The first being that most Kiwis just do not pay that much attention to, or care about, defence having been living in a bubble for so long where they were taught that the world around NZ is safe and benign. The second reason is that it just might be possible for some of the media in NZ to be savvy enough to know that Vote Defence budget and therefore percentage of GDP, is basically worthless unless/until one actually dives into the Vote Defence numbers. The fact that the Capital Charge and other associated charges are still around, distorting the budgetary numbers and distracting people from what NZ is actually spending on defence in real terms.
The "increase in funding" of NZD$22.640 mil. for the increase in the Capital Charge as a result of acquiring the P-8A Poseidon from the Vote Defence estimates for 2020/2021, is rather illustrative of the problem. The NZDF is not getting an additional NZD$22.64 mil. of real money to spend on anything. Rather, it is an increase in one area to offset a charge which appears elsewhere in the Vote Defence budget. The problem that arises from this approach is that this offset increase appears in the total budgetary amount making it look like the NZDF is getting more funding than it actually is. I would need to go back through and crunch some numbers again to see how much the Vote Defence budget is getting distorted by what I would consider to be accounting shenanigans, but I do recall that in years past, it had amounted to 30% or more of the published Vote Defence budget. IIRC at the time, it was being claimed that NZ was spending 1% of GDP on defence, when it actually worked out to only about 0.67% GDP.