chasper
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 80
|
Post by chasper on Jan 29, 2013 18:28:26 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Jan 30, 2013 13:35:53 GMT 12
Quite an interesting comment and quite valid vis-à-vis NZ defence policy. I disagree with you comment about reality of the severity of their cuts. With pollies anything is possible, never forget that.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jan 30, 2013 19:01:43 GMT 12
Its an interesting article, and written to raise debate. From that perspective its OK, but I think he overplayed his argument a little. Here's why:
Some major defence procurements/decisions under the Gillard administration:
* Navy - HMAS Choules, comprehensive ANZAC upgrade approved for all 8 vessels, 24 MH-60R ordered to replace 16 older aircraft
* Air Force - EA-18G conversion for 12 aircraft approved, 10 C-7J ordered, 2 additional C-17s purchased
* Army - 100+ additional Bushmasters purchased, 19 additional M777s purchased
* ADF - basing of USMC personnel and equipment in the NT.
Overall, that's not a strong argument that the government is not interested in defence.
The funding cuts quoted aren't representative of the entire Defence budget. Looked at that way, this year's budget is down only 1.6% on the 2010-11 amount, and that's due to project delays and the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Timor and the Solomons.
Lastly, there's an election later this year and Labor want to be re-ellected. Remember the Aussie world view is very different to the Kiwi one. So far the only area they've publicly flagged for cuts is middle class welfare.
So, as a debate piece its good. But that's what is it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Jan 31, 2013 0:48:03 GMT 12
Good points Richard. I'm a bit conflicted here on the one hand pro defence but on the other the rational side says Defence shouldn't be left alone and cuts made to all other Government expenditure. From what I see defence has been slow to reign in unnecessary admin/travel/accommodation costs. Defence people I know see this as an entitlement, where most organisations have really tightened up on this sort of thing. Anyway everyone (UK, US) is now or will soon be on austerity measures.
Maybe the focus on Australia has been because of a relatively strong economy particularly during the mining boom industry saw us as a bigger opportunity to make up for declining orders elsewhere around the globe. There is some risk though that if new revenue sources don''t eventuate Defence may be plumbed to provide saving for all the new social agreements now agreed but not funded eg disability insurance and new health agreements. Mind you the opposition says it wants ""cranes over Sydney"that too will need to be funded.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Jan 31, 2013 12:13:28 GMT 12
Its an interesting article, and written to raise debate. From that perspective its OK, but I think he overplayed his argument a little. Here's why: Some major defence procurements/decisions under the Gillard administration: * Navy - HMAS Choules, comprehensive ANZAC upgrade approved for all 8 vessels, 24 MH-60R ordered to replace 16 older aircraft * Air Force - EA-18G conversion for 12 aircraft approved, 10 C-7J ordered, 2 additional C-17s purchased * Army - 100+ additional Bushmasters purchased, 19 additional M777s purchased * ADF - basing of USMC personnel and equipment in the NT. Overall, that's not a strong argument that the government is not interested in defence. The funding cuts quoted aren't representative of the entire Defence budget. Looked at that way, this year's budget is down only 1.6% on the 2010-11 amount, and that's due to project delays and the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Timor and the Solomons. Lastly, there's an election later this year and Labor want to be re-ellected. Remember the Aussie world view is very different to the Kiwi one. So far the only area they've publicly flagged for cuts is middle class welfare. So, as a debate piece its good. But that's what is it. The ADF has already tightened its belt since the last budget. The F18Fs bought have been at the expense of other programs because they haven't been budget for. The purchases are because of hold ups in the F35 program. Choules has been laid up for about four months now because of a transformer problem and now they have had to replace all of them. It may be back in service April or May. The only other ships they have for similar use are Success and Tobruk, both laid up broken, in fact Tobruk has been renamed Tobroken. That's why Canterbury was being on standby for them but now she is due out of service for remediation work. The extra C17s were again at the expense of existing programs. The 19 additional M777s for the army are not what was wanted or needed. The SPGs was what was wanted and needed and the Army is still without Self Propelled Guns. The MH60Rs were bought because of the difficulties the RAN created with the Seasprites and have experienced with the MRH90. The C27J was a replacement for the Caribou and that program had been ongoing since before the 'bou was retired. It was just that preceding govts couldn't make up their minds and the funds were apparently budgeted. Gillard has just announced a round of spending cuts and the ADF will be hit, like it or not. Like us the ADF is having retention issues in technical trades, especially in the RAN, who go off to the mining sector. They also have sub crewing issues because of the location of the subs at Fleet Base West. |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jan 31, 2013 18:44:51 GMT 12
The SPGs was what was wanted and needed and the Army is still without Self Propelled Guns. The MH60Rs were bought because of the difficulties the RAN created with the Seasprites and have experienced with the MRH90. I've heard the argument put forward that the SPGs were cancelled at the right time; they were another SH-2G(A) type project in the making. They would have been a buy of only 19 guns that were going to be unique to the ADF, and were an expensive way to obtain a capability. Other views offered on the Seasprites: fitting AGM-84 to the ANZACs provided a cheaper and more effective ASuW capability than an expensive small, helo sent into an adversary's AAW kill zone to launch a short ranged, comparatively low lethality missile. |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Jan 31, 2013 21:15:16 GMT 12
Yes Richard I was having a read before and apparently the Australian army was doing to the SPG what the RAN did to the Seasprite. Instead of buying an off the shelf product they wanted a custom made SPG with certain bells and whistles and a production run of 19 guns. The Seasprite issue was RAN decision to operate it as a two crew helo with a custom made untried flight control system and they could not get the computer program to work. Also they were determined to fit the AGM-119 Penguin missile which is far to heavy for the helo and significantly affected the CoG making the helo unstable. If they had of stuck with the aircraft without all their ambitious mods they would be flying them today and not wasted AU$800 million plus. To put it into perspective for that amount of money the RNZN could purchase 9 maybe 10 AW159 Wildcats or 8 or 9 NFH90s at todays prices.
|
|
chis73
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 86
|
Post by chis73 on Jan 31, 2013 21:18:23 GMT 12
Can't say that I agree with the Aussie journo's comments. Australia is still committed to Defence - they are building Air defence destroyers and are talking of a 12-strong submarine force. I think he's reading a bit much into NZ's decisions. We are not relying on Australia to protect us, we're just too cheap! The main problem is that there is no upper house in the NZ Parliament; only a 3-year term; there is no-one taking a long-term view. Hence, Defence spending is always something that is put off for the next government to deal with. Unless it is too politically damaging not to spend (ie the ANZAC frigates).
In open waters perhaps. But remember, the RAN Seasprite was always intended to be a patrol boat plinker in the radar-unfriendly constricted waters of the Indonesian archipelago.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Mar 5, 2013 20:58:40 GMT 12
An interesting article about proposed Australian defence cuts. The current govt has already slashed the ADF budget by AU$5,5 billion over the next four years and it is thought that another round of cuts will be announced in the next budget. It is suggested in this article that any further cuts will cause a strategic risk to Australia. That in turn will cause problems for NZ. |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Mar 6, 2013 18:17:58 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Mar 6, 2013 20:45:50 GMT 12
Which is far better than our idiot minister of defence who said in London week before last tha 1% GDP was ideal spend. I have copy of his speech and am just going through it point by point. Got to calm down a bit before I carry on.
|
|
