| The NZDF Files - NZDF Defence
Debate
†
2005
Introduction
Click to see
vehicular Armour Comparisons
What follows is a debate I became
involved in recently, in the Dominion Post, after the
publication of an article by a Defence expert from Australia
was published in said newspaper who supports the current Labour
government policies of this country. I for one do not agree
with these views and was quick to respond. The first letter
shows thankfully, I am not alone. My letter follows Hugh Webb's
response to the same article.
Doesn't Bear Examination (Letters,
May 24)
It is always good to read
a wide range of opinion, but it becomes dangerous if that opinion
is seemingly established as fact by being presented in isolation.
Your article by the left-wing Professor Hugh White (Features,
May 10) probably contains a lot of neighbourly diplomacy and pragmatism
about a lost cause. However, his comments are from a modestly
distant perspective, which has undoubtedly fed with biased information
from our Government's spin machine.
For example, his statement
that the New Zealand Army is a well-equipped light-infantry force
does not bear close examination. Nor is that likely to be tackled
unless we have a change of government.
Perhaps you might now run
a series of articles based on information contained in the excellent
RSA policy statement, Defending New Zealand. This carefully prepared
paper would do much to balance Professor White's opinion, because
it has been expertly researched by New Zealanders (outside the
clutches of our government PR machine and its 128 secretaries).
Hugh Webb
My own letter was published in
the same issue directly after Hugh Webb's letter. His follow
up on Mr Borrie's letter was also not published. This has simply
allowed for others to put forward their opinions. Note that
Hugh Webb has made mention of the RSA document on the same day,
and then later it is mentioned again by John Blampied. I fear
that those who hold such views are very hesitant to read such
materials.
No Air Cover for Our LAVs (Letters,
May 24)
Professor Hugh White supports Prime
Minister Helen Clark's defence policy (Features, May 10) to
the hilt, saying that disbanding the air force's air combat
wing was solely about economics and that we could "simply
not sustain a modern, operationally meaningful front-line combat
air force".
That's interesting, considering
Australia said it would not have gone to East Timor without
our contribution. It considered (note: past tense) the Skyhawks
as 25 per cent of regional air power.
I fail to see how this, coming
from a so-called expert, is deemed not meaningful. I fail to
see how a dozen, even first generation, F16s would not be meaningful.
At least our LAVs would have some air cover - New Zealand air
cover from New Zealand pilots.
Oh, I forgot - they're all in the
RAAF, RAF and Saudi now.
I think this Government is quite
happy to ensure the average New Zealander's complacency when
it comes to the realities of what even a single fighter aircraft
could do to one of our LAVs, thanks to its not having any air
cover, or some foreign air force turning up late.
Leon Harrison
Reading Too Many Comics (Letters,
June 6)
Leon Harrison (Letters, May
24) complains about the RNZAF's lack of air cover capacity in
tandem with the LAVs. His position is poorly reasoned.
Recent history shows that
our forces are overwhelmingly likely to be deployed as part of
a coalition force and/or in an asymmetric-treat environment. Therefore,
a threat from the air is unlikely and, were it to exist, our allies
(and all remotely feasible opponents who possess air power) have
the budget and capability to mount air-to-air operations in which
we could never afford to compete, even were per-capita defence
spending that of Stalinist Russia.
As for the planned acquisition
of United States F16s during the '90s, this was conceived only
by National, as a post-Anzus sop to the US.
Realistically we cannot justify
buying pricey offensive flying targets that are good for only
blowing things up, with no practical humanitarian or peacekeeping
use.
Anyone who can't see this
has read too many Commando comics, and should try reading about
our expeditions in Malaya, Vietnam, East Timor and via the United
Nations. They really happened.
David Borrie
Top ^
A Few Thoughts Noted
Mister Borrie needs to have read
my letter more than once to see all the points he makes have
already been countered by his arguments. Poorly reasoned? Perhaps
I need a degree? Perhaps all my mates who have served in the
Armed Forces of this country, and in a couple of causes even
more than one branch, have also been reading too many commando
comics. I do wonder if they have any issues I haven't read.
That aside, I haven't read a commando
comic for years, though, Sun Tsu is never far from reach. I
would rather Defence cost money, than lives, but I guess, some
people don't live in the same world I do. Deterrent is far better
a thing than loss of life.
On the matter of coalition forces,
most people who share these sorts of opinions overwhelmingly
disagree with our Defence personnel even deploying with said
forces, such as the UK, the US or Australia. And yet we are
to be an effective peace-keeping force? I can't see how.
Asymmetric-treat environment? Yes,
let us look at 9/11. New Zealand is a much smaller sized country
than the US. If a similar situation where to occur, with even
limited warning, a combat air wing is one of the few realistic
counters to this devastating threat. This term has been used
very compactly and this is a dangerous way to think when it
comes to the pure nature of conflict.
On top of that, air cover means
Close Air Support (CAS) providing the most rapid response to
other land, sea and air threats providing highly effective protection
giving that ground force the greatest chance of survival possible.
Denying them that puts a dollar value on, not only their lives,
but the lives you say you are are there to protect in the name
of peace.
Even in third world countries,
armed jet trainers are a risk, as are fast attack gunboats,
patrol craft, helicopter gunships and armour. To consider asymmetric
is denying the meaning of the word itself. All of these threats
are easily, and most effectively, with the least possible lose
of life, dealt with by a combat air wing. This is a fact of
modern warfare.
The RSA have a handle on the issue
of Stalinist Russia. We have no excuse and plenty of money considering
a recent budget surplus, to cater for even a handful of aircraft
to fit the bill, but it would take a decade to bring any such
force up to speed in any case. Considering what we have recently
lost, this is beyond reprehensible.
Anyone who says we could not afford
to compete, are they saying our pilots, aircrews, ground crews
could not keep up if we had the gear? They lack even the most
basic knowledge on which they are pressing an opinion. They
have no idea how expert our people are (were) on the world stage,
despite equipment being run into the ground due to a lack of
even fundamental expenditure. Any capacity we had is now gone,
to the smiling faces of many who believe disarmament is the
way forward for peace. That deterrent, of one of the most respected
squadrons in the world is now part of history and no longer
can play a part in stablising this region, for example, if East
Timor II was to come knocking at our door.
Before one uses Communism as a
basis for funding one should surely examine the foundations
for that very system. I would have thought we would want to
avoid it at all costs.
Attitudes of anti-US are alive
and well in this country and to "sop" to the US is
just another sign of using this very alliance as an excuse to
also be anti-military, anti- anything to do with realistic and
reasonable expenditure on the NZDF.
It seems to me we are more interested
in brokering trade deals with China rather than working effectively
in humanitarian missions with these countries. How much more
self-centered can we get? We become less and less concerned
with the world at large, even our our region of the world, and
more and more self-absorbed. It is a falsehood to think we can
go it alone. We need to be part of the world stage more than
most nations.
How any aircraft flown by Kiwi
pilots would be deemed flying targets I do not know. People
who do not know about the capabilities of New Zealand pilots
on the world stage should not even for one minute speak of them
in such an offensive manner. It is insulting to the highest
degree. But that's okay, after all, those who would, now have
got their way. I just hope it doesn't cost New Zealand lives,
or those of our allies, on operations. Such aircraft prevent
things from being blown up by their presence, namely our LAVs,
with New Zealand soldiers on board. Reading Sun Tsu will bring
forth the concept of the deterrent to war. You make it unwise
for your enemy to take the risk of confrontation. We have given
him an open door.
I fail to see how protecting the
LAVs from opposing forces' MiGs or combat helicopters while
deployed in humanitarian or peacekeeping operations is not practical
in humanitarian or peacekeeping... Admittedly, Rules of Engagement
(ROE) are likely to be even more of a hinderance.
Anyone who can't see this has...
Anyone who has done 5th form debating will have learnt you never
argue your point by starting with this line. Nuff said.
My Platoon commander was a Malaya
veteran and I learnt a great deal, and none of it from reading
books. I have several mates who served in Vietnam, and also
have been deployed overseas in more recent years. I take it
from those who have served, not from books. Rhodesia is another
I have some knowledge on. COIN operations... Close Air Support
was a deciding factor there. If there is any hint or suggestion
that we did not preform less than admirably in Vietnam I think
more reading must be done on the subject.
Top ^
The Follow up Letters
A Disturbing Picture (Letters,
June 11)
So David Borrie (Letters,
June 6) thinks Leon Harrison (Letters, May 24) has been reading
comics because he dared criticise Prime Minister Helen Clark's
dumbing down of our military, particularly the air force.
I suggest he, for starters,
carefully read the recent document produced by the RSA called
Defending New Zealand. It's not a comic.
It paints a disturbing picture
of a relentless assault on weaponry within the forces to the point
where we are unable to "peace-keep". We have no aerial
anti-submarine capacity, anti-mine capability, air cover and only
short-range radar surveillance.
The RSA document also shows
it is well within our ability to finance a small, closely knit
troika of forces that would slot seamlessly into Australia's and/or
United States' defence strategies for our region.
The only thing stopping us
is the prime minister's relentless drive to neutralise any inter-operability
we have with our allies, and, of course, court China.
If Mr Borrie visited Ohakea,
Whenuapai and Woodburne, he'd find all of this and more. It's
no comic, it's happening and it's serious.
John Blampied
Surely Ancient History (Letters, June 11)
Thank you for publishing David Borrie's
comments about air power (Letters, June 6). In reading them, I
learned that there is a comic called Commando.
I also learned that Mr Borrie claims to
be a student of recent history. But then he lost me with references
to the Malaya and Vietnam campaigns, neither of which was terribly
recent. In fact, the Malayan emergency ended years before we brought
our C130 Hercules aircraft, and that is surely ancient history
in any context.
He then refers to strike aircraft as "flying
targets". To any student of history, recent or otherwise,
these machines are exactly the opposite - they find ground targets
and eradicate them.
But then, I might be misinformed. Perhaps
Mr Borrie can tell us the last time that modern combat aircraft
have in fact been destroyed by ground forces?
Michael Dillon
To finish, this was my reply to
Mr Borrie's letter, which was not published. This is not a disappointment
as others were given an opportunity to have their say in my
stead.
The Future of Conflict
Mr Borrie (Letters, 6th June) comments
imply that airforces are 'flying targets', yet air power has
been the defining force in nearly all the major conventional
wars in recent history. He is correct that NZ has also been
engaged in guerilla style warfare, but the Gulf war showed that
this was not the only style on conflict.
I don't think anyone could have
foreseen the events of 9/11. Can Mr Borrie predict the style
of the next conflict?
Some would argue intensely that
New Zealand should not have been involved in Vietnam, Malaya,
Borneo, Iraq, but the reality is, we were. We were also involved
in battles like Gallipoli and Crete. Air cover in East Timor
was supplied by Australia and NZ, not the US. If operational
experience and history has taught us nothing else, it has shown
that any alliance we may have is no excuse for foregoing independent
self reliance.
The purpose of fighter aircraft
are obvious, but some see their deterrent value to avoid conflict,
while others do not. If peace should cost dollars, I would prefer
that to lives.
Leon Harrison
Then, on 8 June we have yet another
letter, first half attempting to counter Hugh Webb's words,
the second half, mine. I will show restraint and only deal with
that second half, but at the end of the letter also put forward
my argument for that part as well. I have been "invited
to consider..." so whether or not this follow up letter
is published is yet to be seen.
First Brian Dooley's letter;
Effective Air Defence (Letters,
June 8)
On May 10, you published an
article by Australian defence expert Hugh White, which referred
to the New Zealand Army as a well-trained, well equipped and workmanlike
light infantry force. Hugh Webb (Letters, May 24) rebutted Mr
White's argument, saying it did not bear close examination.
On the contrary, when equipped
up to its proposed establishment, the army will no longer be a
light infantry force but similar to the British armoured infantry.
The LAV is comparable to the British Warrior IFV or American BFV
except that it doesn't look like a tank because it runs on wheels.
However, its armament is identical.
You also published comments
from Leon Harrison (Letters, May 24) to the effect that a lack
of air cover exposes our troops to an unacceptable risk from hostile
aircraft.
I invite him to consider that
the only way our aircraft could provide such cover would be by
being in the air 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That would
require more than a handful of F16s.
It's better to give troops
an effective air defence weapon such as the Mistral anti-aircraft
missile system, which has been used by the army since 1999.
Brian Dooley
Top ^
My Argument
Realistic Air Defence
Regards the invitation made by
Brian Dooley, Effective Air Defence (Letters, June 6) Mistral
is best used against low flying helicopters, not fast moving
fighter aircraft. They are an optimistic option against real
world threats, providing limited capacity at minimal expense.
There is a reason the Mistral is
considered a Very Low Level Air Defence (VLLAD) system. Also,
although we took delivery of this system in 1998, it has lacked,
since that date, the critical alerting and cueing system required
to allow the operators to properly identify potential threats
in a friend or foe capacity. It also provides vital early warning
radar.
Leaving air defence to systems
like this is less than ideal, but it does suit current government
policy. To the uninitiated, it looks good on paper, but in practice
is quite different.
It must also be stressed that,
on operations, aircrews are rotated on 24 standby. Up until
recently we had this capacity.
Would you want your children being
taught exclusively by a teacher’s aid, or your sickness
diagnosed by a nurse? Why allow your soldiers to venture into
a combat zone with anything less than the correct tools for
the job?
Leon Harrison
More letters to follow Additional
Thoughts and the LAV Issue.
LAVIII does not even come close
to Warrior or Bradley IFV and the whole point is that
IFVs use tracks. Regards mobility, and an ability to carry more
armour as standard for increased personnel protection. A comparision
of armour and its ability to protect can be found HERE.
Top ^
Additional Thoughts and
the LAV Issue
Even the most superficial research
would have given rise to realising the points I have just made.
You would think, where peoples' lives are concerned the effort
would be made. Evidently it is not the sons, nephews, grandsons
or even fathers of those making such arguments against expenditure
who are in the firing line, nor any relation for whom our forces
will be in place for peace keeping or humanitarian aid is forthcoming.
And onto the first part of the
argument.In the first instance Mr Webb is entirely correct.
To deem that a force is well equipped or workmanlike based solely
on the vehicle they have just begun using is, well, quite a
limited assessment to say the least.
Soldiers are not like they were
15 or 20 years ago, the retention stakes are extremely high,
morale is exceedingly low, conditions are far from ideal and
the experience which is meant to be training those coming through
is leaving in droves. Young soldiers do not have the motivation
or discipline these days and many issues once unheard of now
degenerate the ranks.
Throwing money at the problem is
a classic answer, but it is so often not the answer.
Mr White said how important light
infantry forces are to peace keeping efforts, yet here we have
a contradiction as our soldiers go over and concentrate on,
a light armour infantry style deployment. While you train with
these vehicles the classic role of light infantry erodes. This
is our traditional strength.
The argument for the LAVs often
presents the protection of these vehicles, for example, from
overhead attack, of which it must be accepted that air power
holds the greatest threat, yet the argument here is against
the most capable counter, and least likely to cause grief, our
own air power. If the typical arguments are pressed through
to their full extent, guerilla forces are very unlikely, for
example to be shelling our troops with 152mm, or 155mm artillery.
There is one major issue here when
comparing LAV with either of the two Infantry Fighting Vehicles
mentioned; the LAV is not. The issue is mobility and there is
no point raising armaments but to angle the argument for liberal
sympathies. You can mount any of these vehicles with a 105mm
light gun, for example...
IFVs tend to have better armour
due to the fact tracks allow for the weight of more effective
armour, which is organic and not "add on" to an effective
level, which, with LAVs and like vehicles leads to handling
and weight issues. Mobility differences are extremely relevant
when you consider in combat, you do not want the terrain dictating
to you. The amount you save on maintenance and fuel costs you
lose because you often need to travel longer distances to negate
difficult ground. Ask the US Marines. Those who believe future
warfare will be faced on prepared roads at high speeds need
to recap on our experiences in East Timor.
In closing, it is also very dangerous
to speak the word "tank" in cause of either the IFV
or LAV as it leads to the idea that there is some form of strength
where it, indeed, does not exist. Armour is nothing like that
of a Main Battle Tank (MBT) and rather than a main gun (typically
125 or 120mm) these lighter vehicles intended to carry troops
into battle, are armed with cannons. These vehicles are unable
to sustain a hit from a tank (nor are they intended by design
to do so) and may only take on tanks if armed with anti-tank
guided weapons (ATGW), such as Javelin, which the New Zealand
Army has recently acquired. Unfortunately there are no plans
for arming our LAVs with mortars, ATGW or other weapons systems
forgoing tactical flexibility. Despite their modern appearance,
they offer no better protection over the M113 they replace,
in real terms. An RPG has the same effect, as does a .50 calibre
heavy machine gun.
In regards this, it is interesting
to note that the NZ Army will show photos of what various weapons
do to the M113 in the Army News, but it does not do the same
for the LAV to demonstrate just how better protected our troops
are by the new vehicle.
Top ^
20 June 2005
Nope, on Saturday's paper the Dominion
decided not to publish my letter regarding the true nature of
the Mistral SAM system. To be expected. But it is exactly the
sort of thing the New Zealand public need to be made aware of.
Sad, deeming the nature of the letter and the invitation that
was made. No doubt they just want to kill the thread. I'll say
no more...
The next two letters in the thread
were published on June 17 and are as follows;
Nash Said 'Never Again'
David Borrie in his reply
(Letters, June 6) to Leon Harrison is long on sarcasm and short
on facts.
Both the army and navy need
to train with air combat troops to prepare for situations they
might face, if, God forbid, they enter battle. This is more so
for the army, which uses forward air controllers to assist it.
In Malaya, our army was supported
by Venoms of 14 Squadron during the Communist emergency and later
by Canberras, also used during the Indonesian confrontation.
Vietnam saw RNZAF pilots flying
United States Air Force aircraft to support our troops.
East Timor had two Squadron
Skyhawks on standby in Australia to supplement the RAAF if required.
Wasn't it a Labour prime minister,
Sir Walter Nash, who, during World War II, said, "Never again
will our troops go into battle so poorly trained and equipped"?
J McDonald
No Guarantee of Support
David Borrie's arguments (Letters,
June 6) for not retaining an air force combat wing range from
specious to erroneous. A Defence Force is not constituted for
the prime task of humanitarian needs. It basically exists to protect
the population from foreign intrusion.
To say a threat from the air
is unlikely is farcical. In case Mr Borrie hasn't noticed, New
Zealand is surrounded by water. Any threat will be by ship and/or
airborne forces.
There is no guarantee, now
Labour has withdrawn us from Anzus, that our former allies will
come to our aid if needed.To protect our shores and our sea routes,
therefore, we need combat aircraft and a deep-water navy, not
fisheries protection vessels.
Your correspondent's reference
to Malaya, East Timor and the United Nations is awry. The RNZAF
operated DeHaviland Venoms and English electric Canberras in Malaya,
and A4 Skyhawks as air cover for the Interfet landings in East
Timor.
In both instances, the planes
were not used for just blowing things up. They, and the personnel
were there to do a job, which they accomplished with distinction.
Finally, I cannot recall any
RNZAF aircraft being used in Vietnam for "blowing things
up".
M J Sowry
Top ^
Then there was the final letter
published in the thread, which I discovered in mid-August. Perhaps
another reason why my rebuttal was not printed;
23 June 2005
We Are Still Vulnerable (Letters,
June 23)
Brian Dooley (Letters, June
8) asserts, first, that, once the New Zealand Army it is equipped
with LAV3s, it will be more than a light infantry force. That
will be news to the minister, the Defence Force and the army.
The LAV was brought to motorise the army, not mechanise it.
He betrays himself further
with his second assertion that missiles provide more effective
air defence of troops in the battlefield than air power can achieve.
Clearly he does not share
the experience under fire of New Zealand troops in Greece, Crete
and North Africa.
Short-range missiles and other
ground-based anti-aircraft weapons are weapons of last resort.
Having to use them is an admission that all other air defence
has failed.
An air force can do two things
for an army. One is to prevent enemy aircraft from interfering
in the ground task. The other is to prevent hostile surface weapons
being brought to bear.
We can contribute to neither
objective for our own army. Thus, we are as much at the hands
of others to protect it as we were in Greece, Crete and North
Africa.
Michael Dillion
[Abridged]
You may send your comments to juni0r
Top ^ |
