Defence white paper a sign of changing times: Part II


Yesterday I mentioned the changing national security environment that New Zealand finds itself in. The national security environment, which just like like the economic, political and social and physical environments which it finds itself increasingly integrated with, evolves in response to a range of inputs. To ensure New Zealand is secure the New Zealand Defence Force must evolve with the environment in which it finds itself operating.

That means being appropriately equipped for the challenges that may arise in that environment. New Zealand has an army, navy and air force. It spends about 1% of its G.D.P. per annum on defence, which is consistent with the last 20 years. Governments have tended to put big purchases until they are absolutely needed, which has led to some equipment now being too old to upgrade any further and more and more prone to failure – cases in point, the aging P-3K Orions and C-130J Hercules aircraft whose proneness to equipment failure requiring emergency services to be on standby are increasing along side the annual maintenance costs.

Whilst the Defence Force has the primary role of protecting New Zealand from attack, it also has a number of other roles:

  1. Disaster relief
  2. Search and Rescue
  3. Assisting authorities in civil emergencies

This is why Minister of Defence Ron Mark has in the last week announced replacements for the P-3K Orions. 4 P-8 Poseidon aircraft based on the much newer 737-800 airframe are to be purchased at a cost of $2 billion. These will be used for maritime patrol, surveillance as well as search and rescue. New Zealand has a large maritime zone to patrol that our small navy will not be able to cover on its own.

I expect in the next year or so that an announcement will be made on the replacement aircraft for the C-130J Hercules, which is based on a 1954 airframe. Front runner and personal favourite is the A400M from Airbus, which has extra carrying capacity, can operate from short runways and on Antarctic ice. Likely cost is around $2 billion.

The Royal New Zealand Navy will in the next decade need to seriously overhaul its two A.N.Z.A.C. class frigates or replace them. H.M.N.Z.S.’s Te Mana and Te Kaha were part of a plan to build three frigates in the 1990’s to replace the outgoing Leander Class ships. Whilst unlikely to be used in fully fledged combat situation, both have participated in United Nations maritime enforcement operations against pirates as well as Ross Sea patrols. Perhaps the major argument against new frigates is the cost – $470 million a piece for the two frigates, which I found questionable whilst knowing cheaper ships with similar capabilities existed then.

The New Zealand Army has 105 L.A.V. III vehicles of Canadian manufacture. The purchase of so many was questionable at the time – and still is today when one considers that only a fraction of them have been used in deployment. The cost at the time was $665 million, and replaced M-113 A.P.C.’s even though the latter still performed the functions expected of them. New Zealand should be open to considering whether we need all of them and whether they still fit our operational requirements.

In light of the instability in the south Pacific with nearly lawless situations existing in Papua New Guinea, the Solomons and tensions involving world powers such as China, the ability to deploy N.Z.D.F. assets in the South Pacific should be New Zealand’s biggest external priority.

Whatever happens New Zealand needs to maintain the ability to operate with Australian Defence Force assets, as those of our longest and most immediate ally. Whilst there are differences in terms of priorities, Australia understands that the protection of the south Pacific is a major security as well as the place where peace time operations such as disaster relief and surveillance are likely to be performed.

There will always be a need for a Defence Force, contrary to what some on the left think. Our military is also not just a fighting force as I have mentioned above. It performs a variety of peace time roles as well and we owe it to our servicemen and women to make sure the armed forces they serve us so well in are appropriately equipped for the future.

A.N.Z.A.C. Day not a glorification of war


On Wednesday morning, thousands of people all over New Zealand gathered in the pre-dawn darkness to attend the Dawn Service, acknowledging the sacrifices made by the New Zealand Defence Force. They gathered to remember those that had gone to war and never came home, those that fought and came home bearing both physical and mental scars. They came to say thanks.

But they did not come to glorify war.

Across all of the ceremonies I have been to in Christchurch, not one struck me as vaguely promoting war or militarism. Not one failed to mention the horrendous loss of life and the effects on society that are felt from having lost so many people.

So, whilst we see plenty of coverage about our soldiers going away in the two world wars and fighting on foreign battlefields, I do not believe that there has been any effort to downplay the losses. This is irrespective of whether they happened on the sun baked slopes of Gallipoli, in the muddy hell of Passchendaele, the Somme, Verdun, Cambrai. It is irrespective of whether they died in the skies above Britain, at sea fighting the Germans or Japanese or in the Mediterranean theatre.

All of the ceremonies set an appropriate tone, sombre and respectful. The high losses suffered are shown in the number of war memorials all over New Zealand from little towns through to Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and so forth.

One concern I had was upon finding out decades ago that World War 1 was also the “Great War”. It did not bother me so much until I started to question what I was taught about the war and whether those teachings were honest. On the whole I think my education has been relatively honest about New Zealand’s involvement in the wars. When I saw the phrase “Great War” several years ago, I asked and it was explained to me that the name is not from any descriptor seeking to make the war look good or grand in any way, but a simple acknowledgement that the scale of the destruction in the countries affected had – until World War 2 – no parallel.

I am further assured by the words of General TIm Keating, Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force, who said that the ongoing and increasing popularity of A.N.Z.A.C. Day is not related to any glorification. Rather those that were children 30-40 years ago and now have children themselves who lost grandfathers and uncles, great grandfathers and great uncles in the wars. They are now wanting to show their children what it means to go to an A.N.Z.A.C. Day Dawn Service, to listen to the stories shared and appreciate what past generations have done for the country.

Like a lot of boys when I was younger, I was fascinated by war stories and the battles fought. I played computer games and read magazines from the bookshop. I participated in mock infantry charges and watched documentaries on television, such as “The World at War”. Whilst it made me interested in the how and why of battles being fought, listening to the stories of the service personnel who were there, one realizes that sometimes the real war was about surviving the elements in whatever form one found them.

Then I saw Saving Private Ryan. Any jingoistic ideas I had about war and the reasons for war were splattered on the floor when I dropped a half litre bottle of coke that I had just opened. Aside from the sheer savagery portrayed in the movie it rammed home the futility, seeing how it had marked Ryan all these years later as a war veteran. The realism was so strong many veterans who had been in France on D-Day in 1944 could not watch because it brought back too many bad memories.

And when service personnel come home from war, a lot leave the services. They go into farming, or train as teachers, or lawyers, or doctors – something more constructive than killing people. But they never forget where they went and what the saw. And whilst bullet wounds generally heal, the mental scars are often more impervious.

Whilst I will be pro-military, it is not because of a revision of my thoughts on war. It is horrible, senseless and usually started for reasons that are questionable at best. It is because no sane country leaves itself unprotected in a day and age where future wars are going to be about geopolitics and resources. I will be pro-military because the New Zealand Defence Force is an honourable and professional outfit to be a part of, and – despite the investigation into the fight in Afghanistan – does not believe in nor participate in the use of torture.

One day the Defence Force may have to fight. Like all I hope it never comes and that future generations of soldiers will not find their names etched into the cold hard gravestones like their forebears. But I don’t think anyone of them will be going to war any more enthusiastically than any of their many predecessors.

 

Big spending decisions looming on New Zealand Defence Force


At the weekend, the bi-annual Warbirds over Wanaka airshow was held in Otago. One of the highlights of the airshow was a pair of United States F-16 combat jets that were flown in from Okinawa, Japan, to perform for the crowd. A few years ago this probably would not have been possible and it points to a warming in our relationship with the United States that in the couple of years the United States Airforce has also appeared at the Royal New Zealand Airforce Air Tattoo in 2017.

However, a failure of the R.N.Z.A.F. C-130 Hercules, meant that one of the displays of the United States Airforce F-16’s was delayed because the C-130 was supposed to play a supporting role but was not able to due to a mechanical failure. Whilst one should expect mechanical failures, these are going to grow in complexity and frequency on aging air frames.

The Lockheed C-130 Hercules transport aircraft for example are based on a type that had its first flight in the 1950’s. The air frames that New Zealand has have been in the Royal New Zealand Airforce for as long as I can remember. Whilst they have been great aircraft and have served really well, it is time to replace them. Further upgrades are not going to work on air frames that are naturally getting more and more expensive to maintain year in year out.

A second aircraft that is due for replacement is the P-3K Orion surveillance/patrol aircraft. It, like the Hercules is based on a very old air frame, and was first introduced to the R.N.Z.A.F. in the 1980’s. It is also based on an air frame that is at least 50 years old. The R.N.Z.A.F. has 6 Orion aircraft in service.

Minister of Defence Ron Mark has indicated that the Orions and the Hercules aircraft are both up for replacement. However Mr Mark says that a decision on their replacement types is some way off as he has a Defence white paper to review. Then a capability plan needs to be prepared and reviewed, before a review of the Government’s ability to deliver on the plan.

The chances are very slim, if not non-existent, but I still believe that there should be a small number – 12 would be adequate – of combat jets. It does not need to be a fifth generation aircraft like the American F-22 or F-35. A small number of Saab JAS-39 Gripen multi-role aircraft so that we may maintain some sort of parity with Australia would be quite adequate. The JAS-39 also has an added benefit of being able to take and land on short runways, so should there be a conflict in the South Pacific where a military response is needed we will hopefully not need to rely on Australian support that might not be there.

Who should be deciding Defence Force spending priorities?


Without a doubt one of the most controversial areas of government spending is always that for the Defence Force. It does not matter how large or small, how sophisticated or out of date their inventory will be, the politics of defence spending is almost as much of a political minefield as any war that the equipment purchased might be used for. There will always be people who think a nation needs to spend more on their military establishment even when current spending is ample. There will always be those who think too much is being spent, even when their nations military cannot perform some of its most basic functions, is viewed with  concern by close friends and allies. But at the end of the day, are those elected to govern really the best people to be deciding on equipment purchases?

In New Zealand there has been a long record of controversial purchasing decisions made by civilians, most of whom have not spent any time in uniform, many of whom have ideological views rather than pragmatic ones based on sound advice that they wish to advance. Whilst one might wonder for example whether or not we really needed a combat component in the airforce consisting of aircraft worth N.Z.$50-60 million a piece, the decision to scrap the combat wing was made by a Labour Government that had as much as a decade earlier decided there was no purpose for it, without a Ministry of Defence white paper or any other report investigating the pros and cons. To the best of my knowledge none of the Ministers of Defence in the Helen Clark government had military experience.

It is interesting to note that the same Government decided to purchase 105 Light Armoured Vehicle III (LAV’s). The short sighted nature of this was multifold. First and foremost, it was noted that the C-130J Hercules aircraft were not up to the rigours of transporting one of these large vehicles. The number of vehicles that was purchased also raised significant questions – did we really need 105 of them, with a total cost of N.Z.$665 million for an army that barely had two functional battalions. In Iraq, during the U.S.-led war it was noted that these vehicles were vulnerable to attack from any enemy with access to relatively simple weapons systems such as rocket propelled grenades, and could not defend themselves against air strikes.

But National has raised questions about whether it is any better with its prioritizing of defence spending. In 1999 it announced it was looking at a third frigate of the A.N.Z.A.C. class, which would cost N.Z.$470 million. It ignored suggestions that European models of equal capability could be purchased for a third of the price. Because 1999 turned out to be National’s last year in office prior to the Clark Government, this never went ahead.

It’s recent announcement that it is looking at replacement aircraft for the C-130J transports, whilst welcome, was followed by another announcement that the proposed replacement aircraft would be C-17 Globemaster transports. The announcements were made by Gerry Brownlee, a former businessman and wood work teacher with no knowledge of the Defence Force. Several questions arise from this announcement:

  • Why spend N.Z.$2 billion on transport aircraft, which is equivalent to nearly 2 years expenditure on the entire New Zealand Defence Force
  • Why these aircraft, the most expensive transport plane currently on the market whose full carrying capacity we simply don’t need
  • Would there need to be infrastructure improvements needed to handle such big aircraft

With these examples borne in mind, I cannot help but wonder whether ideologically driven politicians with no military experience are really suited to making decisions on Defence Force purchases. Certainly I am glad that the military industrial complex with its morally and legally questionable ambitions, does not hold the same sway here as it does over American politicians whose careers are beholden to it. Several of them have military experience, and are of the view that might is right.

At the end of the day, the Government is responsible for the security of the nation, domestically and internationally. No self respecting nation would ever leave itself knowingly undefended, and New Zealand is very lucky to be far from the major conflicts. However, the potential for localized conflicts in the South Pacific or having to contribute significantly to a United Nations peace-keeping/making mission is very real. Without the experience of overseas deployment though, are politicians the right people to be making the decisions or should there be a panel of military personnel with civilian oversight?

God Defend New Zealand


Over these last few days, I have been following the case of the illegal fishing operation in the Ross Dependency, which is administered by New Zealand. A Royal New Zealand Navy ship H.M.N.Z.S. Wellington is trying to get two trawlers under the flag of Equatorial Guinea to allow them to board. As the stand off continues, calls have been growing for the Navy to either sink the ship, confiscate it on the spot or tow it back to N.Z. And as I have been following it, I cannot help but think of the slow yet steady decline of the N.Z. Defence Force, the lack of willingness to show some spine in cases like this, and what other nations are thinking.

For me, observation of the Defence Force’s decline in capacity started in the mid 1990’s when National closed Wigram Airforce Base on the outskirts of Christchurch. The land on which the base sits has since been back to Ngai Tahu, the Iwi whose ancestral lands cover about 97% of the South Island. Aside from being short sighted in terms of where the Airforce could operate from, it deprived Christchurch of a potential second airport. A Defence Force white paper in 1997 suggested that defence spending needed to be about 2% per annum, and made a range of suggestions for the military, including new light armoured vehicles, new combat jets to replace the aging A-4 Skyhawks and a third frigate for the Navy. The Labour Government of Helen Clark only accepted the need for the army to have new vehicles, electing to scrap the air combat wing and buy patrol boats for the Navy.

In the early 1990’s in my first real attempt to understand geopolitics I was concerned that National might undo the good work of the Labour Government led by David Lange, who had banned nuclear powered/armed ships from N.Z. waters. Whilst New Zealand/Australian relations remained good, N.Z./U.S. relations nose dived. At the same time Greenpeace was gathering much support for its anti-nuclear testing protests off the coast from Mururoa Atoll where France was actively conducting tests. In retaliation the French had bombed the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior, hoping that it would divide the country.

As the South Pacific is not the stable, peaceful area that many people think it is – coups in Fiji, lawlessness in the Solomon Islands, systemic corruption – with China and the United States vying for attention amongst nations, New Zealand is quite right to be less interested in the wars in the Middle East or the so called War on Terrorism (which in many respects is turning into a war on human rights). Our backyard is the South Pacific, and the well being of these nations is essential to our ┬ánational security. Building up legal systems and encouraging democracy cannot be done with guns, but things such as intervening in conflicts, enforcing international law is something only New Zealand and Australia have the military capacity to do in the South Pacific as regional nations are too small, both in terms of population and defence budgets to do so themselves.

Alas, although we maintain the best of relations with Australia, who are more like family than allies, the reality is they are more and more drifting into the sphere of the United States. More and more the U.S., like China sees the South Pacific as a resource rich area than the backyard of an ally (Australia)and a close friend (New Zealand). And yet the Defence Force continues to decline. I hope the Government is not thinking may “God Defend New Zealand” because we cannot be bothered. But more and more I wonder if they are.