The way we're going it'd be a fleet of jet skis. The choice will shape the country's ability to help keep its trade routes open for a generation, according to retired Major General John Howard, who's a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. He argues the decision about what to buy, if to buy, deserves far more scrutiny than it's ever done before. He says almost everything New Zealand sells and buys travels by ship. About 99% of its trade, measured by volume, moves by sea: dairy, meat, fuel, machinery. We're also responsible for one of the world's largest stretches of ocean, about 4.1 million square kilometres.
He says if the decision on the frigates is delayed or the wrong capability is chosen, New Zealand could spend years without a warship able to operate in contested waters alongside its allies, and the skills, the systems, and the experience behind that capability would take a generation to rebuild. If we don't have a navy and then decide that we want one, it's not going to be as simple as buying ships. You have to train up a whole generation of command structure, troops, sailors, the like.
No argument from me there, but you would have to wonder why we spent $600 to $700 million on upgrades to the Te Mana and Te Kaha if they're going to be obsolete within a few years. Major General Howard retired says we are a serious maritime nation – what we decide here will show whether we intend to stay one.
Now I've had no argument with his thoughts so far, but this one I would have to dispute. Can we seriously be considered a serious maritime nation if our naval fleet comprises two frigates, two support vessels, and four basically cop cars for the sea? We have of course one at the bottom of the ocean, but that was a survey ship and wouldn't have really counted. Norway, which is the same size as New Zealand, has a naval fleet of 69 vessels: submarines, frigates, corvettes, minesweepers, minehunters, you know, pick a ship, any ship, and they've got it. And sure, they are far, far richer than we are, and the Russian bear is close enough to them that they can feel its fur. But come on, a serious maritime nation does not have two warships and one survey ship at the bottom of the ocean.
I can understand why we haven't made our defence and our interoperative capability a priority over recent years when we have been lucky enough to have lived in a relative state of peace and calm. But the way we are now, the way the world is now, we need to decide whether we want to be part of serious alliances and play our part or whether we just bludge off our mates, who may or may not choose to help us depending on whether they can be arsed or what we've got that they want. There'll be no guarantees.
You only have to look at Europe to see what happens when you rely on another country for your defence. All of a sudden, they pull the plug and Europe is left scrambling. All of a sudden, they're having to play catch up for the past 30-odd years on their defence spending, on their defence capability, because they cannot rely on the US anymore.
We don't have to have a traditional navy. It doesn't have to look like it did 50 years ago. With changes to technology, the way wars are fought, wars are won – if you could ever say that wars can be won. But the way wars and battles are fought now, you'd need different technology, different capability, but we have to do some spending surely. For those who say we don't need to, look at Europe. The US said you've done nothing for us, you haven't spent any money, look after yourselves. And now they really are playing catch up.
We can stand on the shores to the beat of rhythmic drums and sing 'Give Peace a Chance' while people take what they want, and that is a valid option. Even with a fleet we could afford, we're not going to be able to repel a serious invader. But surely, we have to play our part if we want to be considered a serious maritime nation? I would consider that playing our part in an interoperative alliance. That's what we have to do, or that's what we have to make the decision on. I'm all for doing our bit and not bludging off our mates. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
He says if the decision on the frigates is delayed or the wrong capability is chosen, New Zealand could spend years without a warship able to operate in contested waters alongside its allies, and the skills, the systems, and the experience behind that capability would take a generation to rebuild. If we don't have a navy and then decide that we want one, it's not going to be as simple as buying ships. You have to train up a whole generation of command structure, troops, sailors, the like.
No argument from me there, but you would have to wonder why we spent $600 to $700 million on upgrades to the Te Mana and Te Kaha if they're going to be obsolete within a few years. Major General Howard retired says we are a serious maritime nation – what we decide here will show whether we intend to stay one.
Now I've had no argument with his thoughts so far, but this one I would have to dispute. Can we seriously be considered a serious maritime nation if our naval fleet comprises two frigates, two support vessels, and four basically cop cars for the sea? We have of course one at the bottom of the ocean, but that was a survey ship and wouldn't have really counted. Norway, which is the same size as New Zealand, has a naval fleet of 69 vessels: submarines, frigates, corvettes, minesweepers, minehunters, you know, pick a ship, any ship, and they've got it. And sure, they are far, far richer than we are, and the Russian bear is close enough to them that they can feel its fur. But come on, a serious maritime nation does not have two warships and one survey ship at the bottom of the ocean.
I can understand why we haven't made our defence and our interoperative capability a priority over recent years when we have been lucky enough to have lived in a relative state of peace and calm. But the way we are now, the way the world is now, we need to decide whether we want to be part of serious alliances and play our part or whether we just bludge off our mates, who may or may not choose to help us depending on whether they can be arsed or what we've got that they want. There'll be no guarantees.
You only have to look at Europe to see what happens when you rely on another country for your defence. All of a sudden, they pull the plug and Europe is left scrambling. All of a sudden, they're having to play catch up for the past 30-odd years on their defence spending, on their defence capability, because they cannot rely on the US anymore.
We don't have to have a traditional navy. It doesn't have to look like it did 50 years ago. With changes to technology, the way wars are fought, wars are won – if you could ever say that wars can be won. But the way wars and battles are fought now, you'd need different technology, different capability, but we have to do some spending surely. For those who say we don't need to, look at Europe. The US said you've done nothing for us, you haven't spent any money, look after yourselves. And now they really are playing catch up.
We can stand on the shores to the beat of rhythmic drums and sing 'Give Peace a Chance' while people take what they want, and that is a valid option. Even with a fleet we could afford, we're not going to be able to repel a serious invader. But surely, we have to play our part if we want to be considered a serious maritime nation? I would consider that playing our part in an interoperative alliance. That's what we have to do, or that's what we have to make the decision on. I'm all for doing our bit and not bludging off our mates. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
Why aren’t we looking at what the Chinese are doing - which is thousands of repurposed fishing vessels- hulls reinforced to the 9’s and armed to the teeth so they can literally blockade by pulling alongside each other and advancing en masse?
Why rely on one or two boats only? With a fleet of thousands (or hundreds) you can be in many places at once, you reduce reliance on a single vessel, you expand capability of support personnel, you expand your options in many ways.
The fleet are easily disguised as “fishing vessels “ - your navy isn’t wiped out if a single ship is attacked by the Chinese
Just some thoughts from a mum who has been watching Chinese activity around the spratleys for several years now.
We are not currently capable of taking a battle to anyone- nor are we currently equipped to defend ourselves- and no one is coming to rescue us. Our allies will be too busy fighting their own battles (and we haven’t lifted a finger to help the us defend ourselves patch and neither has Australia)
We need weapons- and lots of them and fast…..oh and steel (but I think the greens put a stop to that)
As a taxpayer I am not convinced that our "Royal" navy has the personnel and expertise to use a Styrofoam paddle board let alone a proper war ship.
Before any purchases are made, I would want to be confident that our Naval personnel (and Defense in general) have the suitable training and experience they "once had".
For that to happen, the poisonous ideology of "diversity equity and inclusion" used for recruitment would need to be expunged, along with any idiot Minister who endorses said nonsense.
We need leaders and competence.
We tried using pearl clutching social media commentators and that did not work out very well.
Navies are hugely expensive and sinking umpteen millions into a couple of lightweights is a waste of money as it would add just about zero to NZ's ability to fend off an attacker coming in from the open sea. A coast guard made up of small, fast armed vessels is a much better investment. But above all, we need an air force that includes land-based naval attack aircraft such as the Super-Etandard carrying Exocet-type missiles.
Kerre, interesting stuff with good points in the comments as well. Realistically, only a very powerful enemy could launch an attack against us (distance, international concern about strategic issues, logistic requirements, vulnerability etc). Our response might be similar to Singapore’s strategy: become the poison shrimp that no-one wants to swallow. That would be enormously costly and only useful if we had a permanently threatening near-neighbour. My preference is for a force capable of wide-ranging action, within our Pacific environment, but not one which breaks the bank. Our maritime environment indicates a need for a flexible Navy, say 3 large logistic type carriers, armed, equipped with helicopter support, capable of carrying a Marine Infantry company, a Combat Engineer troop and with various deployable support assets. Such a vessel would provide the capacity for a wide range of functions, including showing the flag.
A modest Army, say 10,000 men, and wide-ranging surveillance Air Force, with suitable long-range weaponry might round that out. (Summary only of course.) Having said all that, it now appears to me that the greatest threat to our civilisation (such as it now is) is entirely internal, and govt has no intention of doing anything about that.
NZ Defence spending isn’t expected to finance a stand alone Defence Force, it’s the necessary price of admission to the ANZUS, AUKUS, Five Eyes tent. Without that who should or would care when the barbarians arrive at our gates? The be Noddy no mates or to buy some insurance, that is the question.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.