National’s 2005 Defence Policy
I’ve been debating on this blog with Paul Williams whether Murray McCully’s statement on Agenda that National is extremely unlikely to to re-instate the RNZAF strike wing abolished in 2000 by Labour, is a major shift in policy.
I don’t think such a statement is a major revelation, but to be fair to Paul, Press Political Editor Colin Espiner has blogged that this is:
“a major U-turn from National’s previous position and a ringing endorsement for Helen Clark’s defence policies from her political enemies.”
Now when I read this I still wasn’t convinced this is a major u-turn, as it had been my impression that National had given up on restoring the strike wing since it lost the 2002 election. Mainly because the longer you go without one, the much much harder it is to reinstate one – especially as all the pilots have got jobs overseas.
But one of the hazards of being a former “insider” is that what you think is common knowledge, is not. When you work in Parliament you often have discussions on policy and soon work out what way the wind is blowing. Hence I don’t think I have heard anyone seriously advocate it should be reinstated since 2003 or so, but that doesn’t mean that was the public perception.
But did National still publicly hold out in 2005 that such a reinstatement is likely? Well I went to National’s 2005 Defence Policy. And you know there is not a single word in that policy about the Air Force Strike Wing. Nope, not even a word.
So bearing in mind the 2005 election policy was silent on the strike wing, I still have to disagree with both Colin and Paul that this is a major change.
And if we go back into the Herald archives (bless them for keeping them all searchable), we find an August 2005 story which says “Mr Carter confirmed that any prospect of re-establishing the Air Force strike wing was remote”.
I rest my case.
I also disagree that this is a vindication for the decision. It isn’t vindication, except for Father Time. It’s just a reality that the longer time goes on, the harder it is to reverse something.
If you asked all 48 National MPs, do they think the decision to get rid of the F16s was a bad decision, I’d guess 40 – 45 of them would say yes. But if you also asked them do they think National in 2009 should try and reinstate the strike wing, then I’d predict 47 out of 48 would say no.
The same goes for Labour. Ask the 50 Labour MPs if they agree with National’s 1991 benefit cuts and all 50 of them will say no. And again ask all 50 if they think Labour should reverse those benefit cuts, and 40 or so will say no.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Oh it is so nice to have everything on record! Like a pledge card for instance!
August 27th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Remember “Benign Strategic Environment”
The strike wing was disbanded at a time when a certain H1 to made a statement that we are in a “benign strategic environment “.
I note that Countries with a more long term strategic direction and continually applying lessons learnt by history didn’t take that view –they have maintained their capability [eg UK and Aust]
It maybe acceptable at present to not have a strike wing but the strengthening of the nations that our dear leader loves so much like China and Russia combining to carry out military exercises is a little disturbing.
John Key and the Nats should keep it open that their decision is always open to review depending on the stability or otherwise of the Pacific region remembering exactly what DPF has stated that it is a lot harder to re-instate military capability when it disbanded than when it is just scaled back.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
If one was fully aware of the capabilities of our strike wing at the time they were disbanded and the high regard that our pilots were held in, one would have lamented their passing.
Having seen them in action, and knowing what they were doing not only in NZ but in Australia, I understand what we lost when we passed up the opportunity to dramatically modernise our strike wing for $500 million.
That we have subsequently spent $800 million for a far smaller number of helicopters for our air force raised my eyebrows.
Now the cost of re-establishing such a capacity is prohibitive. Our forces have lost training opportunities. Our Ground Forces can no longer train in co-ordinating air support. Our Navy cannot excercise in Anti Air warfare in New Zealand.
This was the first example of ideaology over practicality from the Labour Government. That National have come out and made this policy statement is an exercise of practicality over ideaology.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Funny but I had a look at national’s policy on employment the other day and even though the current law is a fair bit older than the decision to scrap the air wing they still seem to want to radically change that. I’d've thought forcing tens of thousands of businesses and millions of their employees into a whole new set of rules would be a harder change than buying a few planes and getting a few pilot’s together. Perhaps a few more anonymous donations from whoever the hell it is that sells jet fighters would change the party’s mind? (It certainly worked for the insurance council…)
[DPF: You couldn't be more wrong. Building a strike force from new is many times more difficult. Where do you get pilots from? Who even trains them? What base is set up for them etc etc. And if you actually knew what you were talking about you would also be aware that National is not talking radical change to the ERB. In fact if you had a brain cell to spare you would work out National's position on the ERB is far more of a u-turn than that on the strike force. But no you just think repeating a slogan and a smear passes for intelligent comment]
August 27th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Whilst I can accept that National’s position on a strike wing is not a major U-turn, I would argue with your dispute over the other bit.
The view McCully’s espoused on Agenda on future defence priorities – building a niche force etc. – was a largely ringing endorsement of present Government policy. You will note the quote Espiner uses from Agenda, which is a fair reflection of the interview: “the Government had “moved in the correct way so far with some of the niche expenditure … and it is fair to say that we see the way forward is for New Zealand to focus on some capabilities that it can really execute well”.”
McCully suggested that our aid budget should be more focussed, and in no way offered support for the abolition of the strike wing, but the view he preferred on current defence policy was an endorsement. You perhaps have yourself fallen into the error of equating a suggestion of support for the current position as a suggestion of vindication of the decision that got us there. I do not view what Espiner at least said, as saying National now thinks abandoning the strike wing was a good idea, he was merely saying that he viewed McCully statement as a endorsement of the current government direction on defence – which I think it was.
[DPF: Well done Graeme. You are correct that the strike wing is not a u-turn so to speak, but that the wider foreign/defence policy is, while not u-turning, changing to be closer to Labour. I don't think that is what Colin was saying though]
August 27th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
David, there’s two issues for me. One is whether it’s a change of policy and another is whether it is good or not.
Firstly, I think it is a significant change in position particularly when you consider the vitriolic opposition from the Nats and others at the time (the sky is falling stuff I thought, reminded me of the geriatric generals campaign against NZ’s ’80s nuclear free stand).
Your points are valid so far as they go, but not campaigning and/or soft releasing a potential change is quite different from a full reversal. Also, I’d argue that the significant redesign of social security under Labour effectively is a reversal of the ’91 cuts – I mentioned earlier housing, support for the elderly, WFF etc.
Secondly, is it a good policy. I think yes. If you were cynical you might suggest that Key’s adopting a small target me-too campaign strategy where the only difference between the government and the opposition is the respective leaders.
One final thing, I cop it regularly from Australians who argue NZ is freeloading. I understand, but don’t agree with, their perspective but get frustrated by their inability to accept that NZ is a sovereign nation that has a right to determine its own defence priorities. I only hope Key maintains an independent view and is now bullied by the likes of Downer and Nelson.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Graeme Edgeler wrote:
The view McCully’s espoused on Agenda on future defence priorities – building a niche force etc. – was a largely ringing endorsement of present Government policy.
Well, Graeme, I thought one thing McCully had to say more times that should have had to was that he wasn’t going to start making policy in interviews – which strikes me as a pretty smart, and entirely responsible, position.
And I really wish ‘u-turn’ could get send to the cliché graveyard where it belongs. I think we may find The Press has editorially changed a few positions over the year; just as neither Labour nor National are running on identical platforms as they did back in 1957.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
I always wonder who we would use our strike aircraft against?
The cornerstone of New Zealand’s foreign policy – and not just Labour, but both parties – is wedded to collective defense in association with our allies, support for the legitimacy of international law and to dispute resolution via organisations such as the U.N.
It is inconceivable in the current world environment that we would be required to defend our home islands by ourselves. It is inconceivable – as shown by our refusal to take part in the illegal Iraq war – that we would engage in unilateral aggression against anyone who a strike wing would be useful against. And if we were to engage anyone in a regional war in concert with our allies, our inability to afford the avionics and weapons required to ensure the survival of our F-16′s/A-4′s would mean they would not be able to engage any sort of reasonably well equipped enemy except in the most critical circumstances where the guaranteed heavy losses of our aircraft and pilots might be worth it.
The supporters of the strike wing cannot get their head around the fact there is no electoral support for the massive increases in the defense budget required to both equip, maintain, update and most importantly TRAIN a really effective fast jet force, and at the same time pay sufficient salaries to retain NZ army personnel, and re-equip our decrepit and run down Army and Navy. The fault for the run-down of our armed forces can be squarely laid at the door of the previous National government who slashed defense spending in real terms and left our military in a near moribund state of imminent collapse.
The reality is our strike wing was a relic of Imperial Air Training scheme, and our old force structures reflected a cold war defense posture organised around re-fighting WW2, providing anti-submarine escorts to US carrier battle groups and training pilots for whatever form the successor to bomber command might have taken, with an assumption the world wouldn’t have irradiated itself before the newly raised and New Zealand division turned up to do its bit.
The current defense policy -a modest re-equipment of the army, those components of the air force that support the army, and new ships for fisheries protection along with pay rises for the troops might not fulfill the gee-whiz fantasies of over-grown boys, but it accurately reflects the realities of New Zealand’s internal politics and is far better tailored to the foreign policy objectives of New Zealand.
The worry isn’t that National has finally U-Turned on this issue – the worry is it has taken them so long to admit the blindingly obvious.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
If that’s the case Craig, then what is National’s policy? Is it to restore the air-strike capability or not? If the confusion is not intended, they should clear it up.
Also, it appears to me that National are making policy on the hoof, isn’t this what got them into trouble with Audrey Young?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
You seem to have a comprehension problem, Paul.
The Nats’ policy for at least three years has been that it is prohibitively expensive to restore the air force strike capability. This isn’t news. Defence people were saying in 2000 that once you get rid of the capability, it’s pretty much gone for good.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
It makes me wonder sometimes if we hadn’t got into this postion in the first place if the Nats had listen to the Airforce. When RNZAF top bass wanted to do a Kahu 2 upgrade on the A-4′s. They believe at that time that Joe public and the opposition parties will not except the F-16′ deal ie: When the Navy got its 2 Anzac’s instead of 4 Anzac’s etc and there were other needs in Airforce at the time ie. the option to tack on back of RAAF’s order for the C-130J’s. We had a option to buy at least 8 C-130J’s
August 27th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
DPF. I might not be that smart but I’m pretty sure you mean the “ERA” rather than the “ERB”. As far as not knowing what I’m talking about? Well, yeah I’ve only seen the policy the nats have up on their website which does seem pretty radical. But then again that’s just what they’re saying is public (and we know how misleading that can be) so maybe they do have some other plan for working Kiwis and their employers. Hey, hold on… you’re like an insider with the… uh… nats, yes? Maybe you can tell us something they’re not saying. Man I wouldn’t have though you’d fall into that old Lakovian trap of adopting your opposition’s language though, I mean “u-turn”? Really bro even your rabid mates haven’t missed that. Please don’t tell me you’re losing your mojo?!
[DPF: Yes ERA not ERB. My only excuse is I was the main staffer analysing and fighting against the bill, and so the phrase ERB is ingrained on my subconscious. I haven't checked out the policy section, but there was a speech not too long ago stating that the the ERB would remain. I do expect there will be some amendments though such as the requirement that only unions can represent employees for a collective contract. And no I am no longer an insider with the Nats. I get the vast majority of my info via the Internet and media. Having said that I do have some interesting chats with MPs from time to time but that doesn't make me an insider. And finally I have never regarded myself as having any mojo to lose]
August 27th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I remember how shell shocked the PM looked when 911 took place. She had been trotting out the benign environment stuff and it struck her that in this world bad things can happen very quickly.
The scuttlebutt that I’ve heard is that Labour is finally aware that it was a disastrous decision to scrap our air defense. Apart from the obvious reduction in defense, it has resulted in substantially less general applicants for the armed forces. An armed force without a strike wing is a joke.
May 7th passed quietly this year with no one realising its significance. It was the 65th anniversary of a profound decision. Admiral Yamamoto decided to postpone the planned invasion of Port Moresby. Invading the eastern cities of Australia and the relatively simple task of conquoring NZ would have followed. Now however, everyone (just like before WW2) is saying it couldn’t happen here.
“Lest we forget”, unfortunately, I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that before too much longer I may have to start saying I told you so to many of my peacenik friends. I really hope I never have to however, but as they say, the only thing you learn from history is that you don’t learn from history.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
IP, not in the slightest. It is very clear that National want to soften their position and are first checking the reaction. Pretty standard stuff. The only problem is that they were so indignant about Labour’s 1996 decision they now have to find away to agree without looking like flip-floppers…
August 27th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I mean ’99… not ’96
August 27th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Mention of Major Yamamoto moves me to respond.
Durinw WW2, a japanese submarine was harried and rammed by HMNZS KIWI, eventually run aground, a number of code books were salvaged before they were able to be destroyed. Leading Signalman Buchanan was killed in the action, and mentioned in despatches, an honour at that time one step below the award of a VC
These salvaged codes were hard to replace, and as such continued to be used for some time. One decoded message gave information that Major Yamamoto was due to fly to a remote location to carry out an inspection.
His plane was intercepted, and Yamamoto was killed in the crash!
This may have shortened the war by at least 6 months!
August 27th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Unfortunately, the air strike wing won’t happen whoever becomes the gummint next year. We could do it if the will was there but…it’s not. Sad. We’ve gone down the road of upgrading to new choppers and configuring the air-force (cough*!) to be a support wing for UN peacekeeping.
No jets, buggery!
August 27th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Our Air force, our Navy and the Army are all far from having a modern combat capability of any depth. And as has been pointed out, not being able to readily train against viable opposition in other services adds to the degradation of those capabilities.
To restore our forces would probably need a tripling of defence spending so we’re between a rock and a hard place.
Lt Commander Bridson, in command of the Kiwi in that action was grandad of a close friend.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Talk as loudly as possible and carry a small stick. Commodore Bainimarama approves of NZ Defence policy.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
toms “The current defense policy -a modest re-equipment of the army, those components of the air force that support the army, and new ships for fisheries protection …. might not fulfill the gee-whiz fantasies of over-grown boys, but it accurately reflects the realities of New Zealand’s internal politics and is far better tailored to the foreign policy objectives of New Zealand.”
Tom, you’re right in what you say about the state of our current defence policy reflecting our internal politics, the situation the Air Force are in and the direction the government have taken them down is, on the face of it, the correct path; the problem I have with your take on the lack of an air strike wing (I would prefer us to have had an Anti-Shipping and air defence capability) is that the region, and any region for that matter, is not the “benign” environment that the PM was harping on about a few years back. That we haven’t planned for a defensive contingency is bloody nuts!
The region, including such idyllic places as…East Timor, Fiji, Chinese interest in the Pacific, the Mussie Peril in Indo-land could escalate given unforeseen conditions. As BogusNews stated above, “in this world bad things can happen very quickly”.
What you have failed to grasp is; the obvious reason why successive governments have not met our defence needs, is the same reason why just about every government in the world cuts defence expenditure on a fairly regular basis….military budgets are easy money to divert to other pet projects and policy initiatives! Happens all the time and it will happen again in the future!
The foreign policy objectives of the Labour government with regard to the military are firmly wedded to UN policy. This is a bloody mistake, whatever shape our air-force should take, the one bloody configuration that it shouldn’t be is the present one.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
I agree that it is hardly a u-turn (indeed I remember some very irate members in 2005 that it was NOT a pledge to bring back the strike wing) although I was stunned by McCully’s release basically vindicating the ideological decision to first welch on the F-16 deal and then get rid of the strike wing altogether.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Why is McCully talking about Defence policy? Wayne Mapp is National’s Spokesperson for Defence, and this is clearly not Foreign Affairs. Its strange that MPs are now speaking on issues outside their portfolio and its being considered ‘policy’…
August 28th, 2007 at 12:27 am
I think it was unfortunate to have to axe the airforce strike capability. Obviously, the ANZAC frigates and the A4s are(were) the most visible and potent symbols of the modern NZ defence force. Especially considering the expense of the of the Project Kahu upgrade less than 8 years earlier.
But the deal to replace the A4s with F16s was never really viable in terms of then-current levels of defence spending, it would have amounted to a 20% hike in total annual defence expenditure (for the first five years), not to mention the one-off cost of $500 million.
The only reason it was approved by the then Shipley govt. was that it was presented as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity – use it or lose it. At that time, the government was living on borrowed time (and votes). In so, it could afford to go into opposition approving, then handing over projects the country couldn’t afford, and that future opposition (then National post 1999) would benefit from the government scrapping.
The only real chance for New Zealand to re-establish any strike capacity would be for the government to agree to buy the Australian Super Hornets when the JSF fighters are delivered. That way, RNZAF pilots and ground crew can rebuild their capability supported by the ADF.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:33 am
From memory, the Israelies spend nearly $1400 per capita on defence, the USA abour $700, Aussie aboud $345 and NZ about $135.
If there was a 20% increase in expenditure in our armed forces, then bring it on. If that meant we had some very potent F16′s and for the first time in many years, some kind of military deterrent, then I’d be all for it. I mean after all, when you consider the appalling waste this govt is overseeing (as I’ve said many times before, an extra 20Bil a year on the state service, and, er, how is it better?).
The greater reason why Jenny looked to get the F16′s wasn’t so much that it was a once in a lifetime opp. It was more because the enonomy had finally turned around. Our growth in the last year of National of 3%, we had gained an extra 3Bil of new exports, our productivity was nearly 3x higher than now and we had a surplus of over 1.5bil. Under Dulmoon, (who was following many of the high tax and spend Labour policies) he had almost bankrupted us. To a certain extent it is understandable that govts of the time tighted their belts and wouldn’t spend much on the military.
There is absolutely no excuse now, especially when you see the appalling waste on the state service.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Of course you’ve got Mojo DPF – you shouldn’t be so self-deprecating (really bro, it’s a little disingenuous). I’m sorry I assumed you’re still a nat insider I just thought you were still on their payroll for polling/comms advice etc.
[DPF: All my comms advice goes through my blog and is sadly provided free of charge to all parties. My polling company has a wide variety of clients and I never reveal who they are (but am totally relaxed for the client to reveal they use my company). But if one was to assume hypothethically that a political party was one of my clients, there is a huge difference between providing a service as an outsider, and being inside the building knowing what the issue of the day, of the week is etc. Ironically I hypothetically much more enjoy focusing on just one small area, than trying to be involved in every issue in every area.
I should also note that I provide commercial polling services professionally to any organisation which wishes to use me, and for example in terms of local body elections have a very wide variety of clients of all political ideologies. I would only refuse as a client a totally repugnant organisation such as the National Front.]
August 28th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Right of way is Way of Right, thanks for the comments regarding my uncle Campbell Buchanan.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:24 am
The incredible waste of money in State Services is an embarrassment to many – we have burgeoning ministries for everything including Woman’s affairs and the growth in the last 3 -4 years is incredible. All because the emphasis has been on more PC ideals which our HR staff continue to ram done our throats.
The Air Force strike wing is just as necessary as a good police force. The deterrent effect of even a small strike wing would be a major threat to any nations that felt they were entitled to our pristine beauty and resources more than we were.
Also doesn’t the costs of running a decent Air force become somewhat offset because all the increase in support staff etc help keep the revenue on our own shores instead of sending everything out of the country. Very few military trained staff cause to much trouble later in life and the training serves them well. How many people in our overcrowded prisons have had military training?
I say keep the Air force strike wing and if we still have some planes left, get on an train up some pilots and protect our country.
We have special police forces to protect us from gangs how about a special strike wing to protect us from armed foreign gangs.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:26 am
http://labour.org.nz/labour_team/mps/mps/phil_goff/index.html
Was anyone else aware that Phil Goff is minister of defence AND minister for disarmament?
August 28th, 2007 at 9:29 am
“If that meant we had some very potent F16’s and for the first time in many years, some kind of military deterrent, then I’d be all for it.”
F-16s were a way over priced “deterrent” for NZ to have. They are a dual role air superiority and attack aircraft. Air superiority is impractical to the defense of NZ as any nation that can contest this (by use of an aircraft carrier or long range bombers) is more than capable of defeating us with standoff weapons. To be half way effective there would need to be an AWAC or two and a few tanker aircraft, which National never intended to purchase.
The only possibility of the F-16s alone using their air superiority capabilities would be in concert with an allied air force.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:35 am
****************************************************************
F-16s were a way over priced “deterrent” for NZ to have. They are a dual role air superiority and attack aircraft. Air superiority is impractical to the defense of NZ as any nation that can contest this (by use of an aircraft carrier or long range bombers) is more than capable of defeating us with standoff weapons. To be half way effective there would need to be an AWAC or two and a few tanker aircraft, which National never intended to purchase.
****************************************************************
At $500 million they were a great deal. As opposed to the $771 million spent on 8 helicopters.
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/20060731-nhrqlf.htm
Our C130′s can be used as tankers, but for training purposes only. In operations we would have been operating as part of a larger force.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:51 am
“…The deterrent effect of even a small strike wing would be a major threat to any nations that felt they were entitled to our pristine beauty and resources more than we were…”
Deterrent to whom? Do you have anyone in mind? The Australians? Hugo Chavez? Only one country has the strategic power projection capability to seriously threaten us and that’s the USA, and if we end up at war with them I would suggest meekly surrendering as fast as possible as the best foreign policy option available. People always quote a superficial analysis of the rise of Fascism in the 1930′s as the reason to massively over-arm, without actually pausing to consider that the series of wars from 1937-1948 were the product of a specific set of highly unusual historic circumstances. A much more likely scenario for any threat would be the rise of Anglo-German rivalry in the period 1890-1914, a near 25 year time span from the emergence of a threat to the actual war.
Besides, aren’t we are all meant to be so terrified of the Al Qaeda bogeyman that we will spend anything to stop the amorphous “terrorists?” I would suggest more policemen would be more useful in catching Islamic extremists than a F-16.
And anyway – one other usually over-looked aspect of the re-armament process is the criticality of timing – i.e. Italy re-armed to soon and was left with an obsolete armed forces at the beginning of WW2, Germany, next to re-arm, main weapon’s (i.e. the Type VII slow submarine, the Me109 fighter, the Panzer IV tank) were obsolescent by 1943 yet by 1944 the United States, which re-armed last, was producing designs like the P-51 and Corsair Fighters, B-29 strategic bomber, M-26 tank and Essex class carriers, combat systems which would last in some cases into the 1970′s.
Given that a threat is historically more likely to emerge over a time span of decades than years, and that he who re-arms last re-arms best, the best defence policy is to spend the absolute minimum until you really, really, really have to.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:55 am
I’m all for upping our defence spend to closer to OECD norms. I think it’s crucial for us to maintain a strong military, with institutional knowledge. But I can’t see any sensible justification for us having an air strike wing.
Sure, I love the boys own appeal of cool military tech. Sure, it’d be cool to have the latest toys. But just consider:
* what would we use it for? air defence? ground attack?
* if air defence then what are the probabilities that any hostile nation will attack NZ from the air? (think about the range of their strike aircraft, and their access to inflight refuelling)
* what avionics would it need to truly interoperate with our likely allies?
* what avionics would it need to have any chance of survival in a real conflict?
* how much would all that cost?
As a benchmark, Australia is looking at spending A$16bn to purchase 100 F-35s. Whole-life service costs will probably double that number. Then add in operating costs, weapons costs and a contingency for an avionics upgrade at some point. I’d think a total of about A$50bn of todays money over 20 years. Lets say we could tack on to that order and pick up 20 F-35s – it’d cost us NZ$12bn over 20 years.
Personally I’d rather that we spent that amount of money on other defence priorities. If we want flying things that fire missiles we might be better off buying more helicopters and developing an Army capability similar to the US’s Airborne Cavalry Regiments. I think that’d be a capability we’d be more likely to employ in places like Afghanistan, Timor, Solomons etc.
Besides … aren’t UCAVs going to render piloted strike aircraft obsolete in the next 10 years
August 28th, 2007 at 10:04 am
“At $500 million they were a great deal. As opposed to the $771 million spent on 8 helicopters.”
We need helicopters. Helicopters that can do Search & Rescue, can do troop transport and can do ASW – all things we need. That is worth more money than the $500 million to pay for the F-16s which are only good to us for interdicting shipping, which is something the Seasprites can also do. We need helicopters for stuff we can do for ourselves. We do not need an air superiority fighter to sit as a white elephant in Ohakea, only to be used in conjunction with people who are already massively capable of providing air superiority – that is a pointless waste of money.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:06 am
unaha-closp, toms … totally agree.
I can’t quite figure out who people think is going to attack New Zealand? It’s very hard to see what country could **realistically** attack New Zealand from the air. And the one(s) that could can also overwhelm any RNZAF air strike wing.
It’s even harder to imagine any realistic scenario for anyone invading New Zealand. Amphibious landings require an incredible level of equipment, and I can’t see anyone with the realistic ability to pull off an amphibious invasion of New Zealand.
So we should stop with the wet dreams about deterrent effects, pristine beauty, natural resources etc etc. If we were to reform an air strike wing then we should accept the chances of it being used in New Zealand are next to zero. So maybe, just maybe, it might be useful in an offshore deployment, but that depends on us being able to fully interoperate with those allies. That leads to big costs for small (Kiwi) benefits.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:25 am
As a general comment I am all in favour of strong defence. It seems to me that a core function of government as defence of the realm. Without armed aircraft of any kind how can we defend our skies? Therefore given the huge surpluses we have the time is right to invest in some fighter aircraft of some kind. If we had a 911 emergency of some kind how could we defend our skies?
I agree with Toms about the usefulness of understanding the rise of fascism in the 1930s — I just don’t agree with the lessons he gains from it. Chamberlain and Eden and many other British ministers wanted to appease Hitler at all costs. If they had stood up to him militarily in 1936 and 1938 over Austria and Czechoslovakia respectively many historians believe that Hitler would have been overthrown. Either militarily by Britain and France and other allies, or by an internal coup of his army generals. That they tried to appease him and do anything rather than go to war meant that in 1939 they faced a formidable military machine that almost defeated Britain, France and the Soviet Union.
And yes the United States might have re armed the last but most historians believe they are a special case — a huge industrial power that has the capacity to build a huge military machine very quickly. That is not the case with New Zealand. Secondly most historians would say that it was Britain and France’s failure to rearm earlier meant that when war came in 1939 they were in a worse position than 1936 relative to Nazi Germany — who had been re arming furiously much earlier.
Lastly the fundamental problem we have is that many people do not take our enemies seriously. Tom’s comment about the rise of “Al Qaeda bogey man” is typical. When will we take these guys seriously? Terrorists, supported by nations, that can bomb Bali, London, New York etc are dangerous enemies. Again given a 911 style attack wouldn’t it be nice to know that we could scramble some fighters?
August 28th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Scott, I’m not sure we’ll see another 9/11 style attack again. I suspect the passengers on the first 3 planes thought they were in a typical (till then) hijack scenario and complied with the hijackers demands, expecting to land at an airport and then wait through a negotiation. You saw with United 93 that once the passengers understood the hijackers intentions they responded differently, and the hijackers weren’t able to achieve their objective. I suspect passengers today would react the same way they did on United 93. That, and other security initiatives like armoured cockpit doors, suggest a 9/11 style attack today would have a very low chance of success.
That said, Al Qaeda is still likely to be attracted to the media impact of attacks on mass transport – witness today’s alerts of possible attacks on the Puget Sound ferries.
Back to New Zealand though … I agree that defence is a core function of Govt, and in that sense ranks ahead of health, education, social services etc. I believe we should spend more on defence than we do. But I don’t see that an air strike wing is the best use of our defence spend.
Picking up on some of Toms comments, I’d add that winning wars (of both the hot & cold types) comes down to economics. The US won the Cold War primarily because it forced the USSR to its knees economically trying to keep up with the USA’s pace of military development. But that same pace of military development has meant small countries like New Zealand have been effectively priced out of some parts of the military spectrum too. To me the difficulty with NZ reforming an air strike wing is that:
1. We have no need for it in and of ourselves;
2. We can’t really afford one that is able to operate with all our allies;
3. We can’t really afford one that could survive a modern battle with our “non-allies” (and it’s hard to think which of those we might be in a fight with).
August 28th, 2007 at 11:13 am
I agree we need helicopters. But we got stiched up on that deal.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:33 am
The acquisition price of $500M on the surface was attractive. However there was a very extensive additional list of costs associated with actually bringing them up to operational status.
Avionics and weapons upgrades, ground support equipment, special tools, and the whole raft of through life contractural deals to ensure access to engineering data etc.
Operating costs were high and this additional cost alone was going to have a major impact on the Defence budget. on year by year basis.
In terms of utility they were great if they were to be deployed with a much larger force. The hysreria that surrounds the use of them in defence of direct attack on NZ is misplaced.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:41 am
The acquisition price of $500M on the surface was attractive. However there was a very extensive additional list of costs associated with actually bringing them up to operational status.
Avionics and weapons upgrades, ground support equipment, special tools, and the whole raft of through life contractural deals to ensure access to engineering data etc.
Operating costs were high and this additional cost alone was going to have a major impact on the Defence budget. on year by year basis.
In terms of utility they were great if they were to be deployed with a much larger force. The hysreria that surrounds the use of them in defence of direct attack on NZ is misplaced. The NZDF is essentially an expeditionary force at the higher end of conflict. In other words major operations on NZ soil are not contemplated.
At any given time only 8 -10 would have been available. There is no air defence control system established in NZ. And to establish would have been mega bucks. Any likely attacker would remove the threat of air retaliation before contemplating anything on NZ soil. Who is this likely agressor and I think any possible attacker would have made his intention clear before he got here. Even the Japs worked over a few larger targets before that even gave us a second thought.
The whole issue of an Air Combat force is emotive but at the end of the day still remains irrelenvant. A need for them was not established in the 50 years after the end of Korean War.
On the other hand the ASW, transport and rotary wing support elements have been in constant demand. They are essential asset and need to be kept up to date. That cost in itself is extremely high and one that at present only really provides the bare minimum of capability. A couple of extra C130 and a half dozen more helos would find immediate employment.
Lets get the emotion of fast fighter aircraft out odf the way and address real and nedded force capabilities.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
The problem with not having fast fighter aircraft (or in the case of the F16 fast ground attack aircraft) is that various components of our forces do need to train in operations where such aircraft are deployed, if not by us, then by those we are operating with.
Our troops on the ground need to learn how to deal with aircraft in co-ordinating air support, and how to deal to aircraft, using portable SAM and other anti air ordinance.
These are needed force capabilities that we cannot train for in New Zealand at present.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
By the way, RAAF F18 fighter bombers were deployed in East Timor.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I think you will find the RAAF F18 were primarily concerned with ensuring that there was no interference by the Indonesian Air Force during the crucial intial phases. Australia has a very well established Air Defence Control system in North Australia that looks out over the East Timor region.
The task was well within the capability of the RAAF and any contribution by the RNZAF would have been more for appearance rather than effect.
The need to have a fast attack force for purely training puposes is hard to justify. Just ensure that the elements that need such training get opportunities in multi-lateral and bi-lateral exercises on a regular basis.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
That would be why one Derek Quigley, when tasked by an incoming Labour government to reassess the need for 32 fighter aircraft, recommended half that number.
This was of course ignored by Labour, who had already made up it’s mind and were quite miffed when Quigley did not give the response it wanted.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
slightlyrighty,
You’re being a bit selective in your references to Quigley – he of course recommended against the F16s saying:
“…the F-16 lease agreed in part with the Whineray report, expressing the view that the need to maintain an air combat force seemed to be based on: demonstrating that New Zealand is serious about its own defence; sending a clear message that New Zealand is committed to broader regional and global security; and, importantly, having an operational capability that can be expanded should strategic circumstances deteriorate significantly at some point in the future.”
http://backin15.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-are-f-16s-good-for.html
August 28th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Paul W
Your link also lead to the following paragraph.
“The Quigley review reported that it is questionable whether the New Zealand air combat force would be deployed in direct support of New Zealand Navy or Army contingents in an operational situation. In a submission to the review, the Navy expressed the view that RNZN ships would normally be deployed as part of a larger force with access to layers of defence and support. It saw the provision of air support in these circumstances coming from the air combat assets of a coalition rather than a dedicated New Zealand air combat component. The Army had a similar view about their operational circumstances. Notwithstanding this, both the Navy and Army require training support from the air combat force in order to achieve their operational readiness states.”
Which was my point if I’m not mistaken.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
And Paul, The Quigley report contained the following conclusions
# Retaining the air combat force at its current level of capability would not carry any strategic, foreign policy or military operational risks. It would be available to respond to security challenges and participate in FPDA activities and bilateral exercises. Training support could be provided to the Australians as long as it was needed. It would require, however, baseline increases over the next 10 years totalling in the region of $300 million. Capital investment in the region of $840-1,100 million would also be required.
# Retaining a reduced air combat capability would balance the strategic and foreign policy risks of eliminating the capability with the financial risks of maintaining air combat as part of the NZDF structure.
# Elimination of the air combat force entirely carries strategic, foreign policy and military operational risks. Disbanding the air combat force would free up considerable resources and avoid the need for significant capital investment. These cost reductions would go a long way to achieving a fiscally sustainable defence effort within the Government’s financial setting.
How is this recommending against the f16′s?
August 28th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
A first principle: New Zealand’s defence force must firstly be designed around meeting our defence needs not supporting the UN.
This raises the question of what are those needs? Primarily home defence or forward capability to fend off any threat and/or stabilise an area before it becomes a more direct one to home.
If the focus is the former, any direct threat to New Zealand will come from the sea and air, so if that is considered real and the primary driver, we would need anti shipping and anti aircraft capability to prevent any toeholds. Any force able to effectively project to New Zealand we will be incapable of meeting offshore, unless we have advanced stealthy submarines. So that leaves us land based mobile batteries and short range aircraft weapons platforms, minelaying, long range surveillance, and mobile land forces to secure key points. Fast attack like the A4s could also be of use as the Falklands showed (but that was 25 years ago).
If the latter then it appears to me that the key interest areas are supporting Australia fending off any threat and the Pacific Islands to deter any incursions or suppress local rebellion. Maybe even up into Asia particularly in support of Singapore and Malaysia. So here we need projection capability – ocean going surface craft that pack a punch and can defend themselves, airlift and sealift capacity, short range ground support and mobile ground forces.
Fast attack would probably not be great due to limited and exposed landing sites in the islands (unless we had Harriers that could be dispersed) and large distances between islands. But they could be of use if based in mainland Aus or Asia.
I’d suggest the forward projection model is the most appropriate for our current level of threat. It’s going to be very hard for anyone to get here in any scale so unless that changes we can create back up plans to deal with that. And our current purchases seem to fit that model, though I’d like to see a bit more airlift and naval gun capacity.
I’m ignoring terrorism threat in this – that’s a whole different kettle of fish.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
slightlyrighty, I think on balance we’re saying similar things.
Quigley and other reviews made the choice over the F16s clear; on the one hand buy them to curry favour with allies but not necessarily improve the NZDF effectiveness, on the other invest in the army and navy to further enhance peace-keeping capabilities. I’m pleased that Labour choose the latter option.
Frankly, Bradford was a poor Minister of Defence far more interested in playing with toys than taking important decisions.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Just one little point IP, the first rule of defence planning is “define your enemy”
Exactly who might plan to invade us?
August 28th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
# sonic Says:
August 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Just one little point IP, the first rule of defence planning is “define your enemy”
Exactly who might plan to invade us?
************************************************************
Actually, there is a much older saying.
“If you desire peace, prepare for war”
August 28th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Slogans are a little meaningless however and preparing for war doesn’t mean having a bunch of fly-boys and bugger all else.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
A wee tip for the next MoD in a National Government read ” Cutting the cloth New Zealand” by Jim Rolfe for the Australia Strategic Policy Institute. It might give you lot an idea what needs to be done because Labour has done a half ass job
August 29th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
“# sonic Says:
August 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Just one little point IP, the first rule of defence planning is “define your enemy”
Exactly who might plan to invade us?”
I suspect that that is the wrong question and bit misleading as there are other threats in the world. I understand that there are still German mine’s off Lyttlton harbour, which should remind us that distance means nothing unless you can exploit it to your own ends, even the precence of Europeans in NZ should show that. I suspect from history that immediate threats will be of an assymetric nature, some of which may or may not warrent an ACF. Our issue, primarily, is events overseas that will have a serious and detrimental effect on our standard of living and political independence, all of which can be put in peril without invasion.
On a more humdrum note. there is a saying that you should “Fight as your Train and train as you fight” and without some sort of fast jet capability we cannot do that for many types of operation. Any ‘niche’ force we send overseas will have to work as part of a balanced force and as we seem to be loseing a balanced force, we cannot train for those roles. We are becoming a liability rather than an asset and the loss of the ACF is a symptom of that.
Restoration of a front line ACF would be prohibitivly expensive and given that the C130′s and the Orions will need replacement, planning for which will need to happen within a few years, wouldnt be a priority and possibly not needed if the M339′s are restored to active duty. The Air Force still has some pilots who can, and do, fly them and ground staff to service them for possible sale, and they have a secondary light attack capacity. Get those back in service and we could be back on track to haveing armed forces that train as a balanced force, given the funding to increase training tempo and improve retention and recruitment. Moreover it gives us the option to regain a proper ACF if required.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
# Tom says:
And anyway – one other usually over-looked aspect of the re-armament process is the criticality of timing – i.e. Italy re-armed to soon and was left with an obsolete armed forces at the beginning of WW2, Germany, next to re-arm, main weapon’s (i.e. the Type VII slow submarine, the Me109 fighter, the Panzer IV tank) were obsolescent by 1943 yet by 1944 the United States, which re-armed last, was producing designs like the P-51 and Corsair Fighters, B-29 strategic bomber, M-26 tank and Essex class carriers, combat systems which would last in some cases into the 1970’s.
Given that a threat is historically more likely to emerge over a time span of decades than years, and that he who re-arms last re-arms best, the best defence policy is to spend the absolute minimum until you really, really, really have to.
************************************************************
Unfortunately, this statement isn’t entirely accurate, and in some respects somewhat simplistic. Germany and Italy started rearmament programs at roughly the same time. Germany’s various programs were much more effective than the Italian programs due to a more developed engineering and industrial base, as well as greater resources devoted for research and development. By the time Germany was defeated, Germany equipment the most advanced and effective, with levels of sophistication the Allies couldn’t match. Germany had fielded the first cruise missile (V-1), the first long range ballistic missile (V-2), IR/nightvision equipped tanks, jet interceptors, AIP submarines with fuel cell technology, smart weapons like radio guided missiles and bombs and unmanned ground vehicles (Goliath).
Despite these advances, Germany was defeated by the Allies because the Allies, through a combination availability of needed natural resources and manufacturing industrial base and processes. On a one for one basis, a top late war German tank like a King Tiger, was better than the top Allied tanks. Where Germany could not compete, was in production. Germany and the United Kingdom/British Empire both produced approximately 25,000 tanks each throughout the war, but the United States and Soviet Union each managed to produce over 100,000 tanks. That kind of logistical margin Germany technological superiority couldn’t overcome, and it was partially Germany’s fault as well. Germany equipment often required more precision parts and production, thus taking more time and energy to build.
As for any talk of re-armament today… A high intensity conflict or “shooting war” today is quite different than it was during World War II. Given the availability, accuracy and lethality of todays weaponry, such situations are likely to be over before the results of a re-armament effort could be realised if it was initiated at or just before the start of hostilities.
With that in mind, if there are potential conflicts that New Zealand might become involved in, the NZDF would need to be trained and equipped to do with those conflicts before becoming involved. I agree that New Zealand is unlikely to ever be invaded, with Australia and America the two nations most likely to be able to carry such a task out but neither having any reason to do so. As such, a “Fortress New Zealand” type stance would be out of place. However, defence should still be important to New Zealand because there are other defence situations apart from invasion that could effect New Zealand profoundly.
Imagine the chilling effect on New Zealand trade if some hostile force decided to plant sea mines in some New Zealand harbours. At present the Royal New Zealand Navy only has an improvised mine countermeasures capability, and would likely need to call upon the Royal Australian Navy for assistance if not outright clearance of important harbours before normal maritime trade could resume. Such a scenario is quite possible and that is within New Zealand home waters. Farther away, New Zealand interests could become involved if there were issues effecting commerce through the Malacca Straits, one of the world’s busiest waterways. Depending on the event it could affect New Zealand trading partners and thus New Zealand. Given the distance, any NZDF response would likely have to be with partners, but New Zealand would need to have something worth bringing in terms of capability. If the NZDF lacks any such capability, then New Zealand might not get asked, or for that matter allowed, to participate. An exclusion of that sort could then enable other countries to have a voice, or some control over New Zealand international relations and trade.
I suggest to readers of this blog ponder New Zealand defence capabilities, as well as known and potential international relations and trade issues. While doing so I suggest that a wide net be cast, so that one does not overlook factors where external events can cause a negative impact on life in New Zealand, or how New Zealand can respond to such an event.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I fully agree with the last 2 comments. I made a comment about this on the other thread about ACF to why MC-399′s should be put back into the air.