New Zealand's Defence Role and Relationship with Australia and Asian Countries as current for 2007.

An Overview.

Recently New Zealand's Defence posture due to years of neglect and poor upkeep is now seeing a resurgence in upgrades and procurements of equipment that our Defence forces require to maintain a certain level of operational effectiveness. We have seen this in Project Protector, the Army's new vehicles and new weapons, and the Air forces new helicopters and Hercules upgrades just to name a few.

Its quite obvious that New Zealand in the past has not kept to its obligations with its defence partners by pulling its weight when emergencies have arisen where New Zealand has been called upon to participate in even limited action like the Yugoslavian war effort where we saw our C-130 Hercules unable to take off due to mechanical failures and our APCs (now decommissioned) unable to take on the tasks as required due to not having proper anti armour to protect them. We also have seen to the embarrassment of the Military and the government the LAV 111s showing cracks in their superstructure. I can name many more examples of failures within our Defense Forces ability to operate with the right equipment and weapons needed to carry out the roles at critical times and, are supposed to be assigned too.

Due to global terrorism and the increasing unstable nature of the governments within the South Pacific, New Zealand needs to take security of our region seriously, without relying on Australia to always do the job for us. It's also been interesting to see a shift in the Labour government's policy towards Defence, especially in light of the terrible disbanding of the A-4s.

The Labour governments strategy is to lay out a further 4.5 billion dollars over the next ten years on top of the Defence cap for general Defence spending to cover further upgrades and to look at options of adding to the Defence Force further infrastructure and procurement that may be necessary to keep New Zealand at the so called cutting edge of our ability to operate alongside our key partners such as Australia.

Having checked and read New Zealand's Long Term Defence Initiatives for the next Ten years and seen what New Zealand has done to replace the existing platforms it is plain to see that the 4.5 Billion that is required for the upkeep and further upgrading will not go far enough for the benefit of our Defence Forces and adequately maintaining the current force structure the way it is. Inflation in itself will have an effect on the proposed spending required as well as pay requirements for Defence personnel, and the government will be forced into a position of buying equipment that simply is urgent rather than what is required. We have already seen how a budget blow out has occurred for the purchase of the NH-90 Helicopters for the Air Force.

Australia as it is does to some extent rely on the New Zealand forces to work alongside with them and to do so in any theatre of operation that may be called upon. Its is also obvious that Australia's Defence strategy has extended dramatically to a more global one where we will see Australia more involved with coalition partners in any theatre of war or peace keeping worldwide, and to maintain its assets in those places of risk, will require New Zealand's Naval assets in some respects to cover their normal operational tasks throughout South East Asia and South Pacific. An area that's now becoming more unstable as we have recently seen.

Many New Zealand people are unaware that Defence arrangements made with countries in our region is vital for our own level of security, despite the benign level of an immediate threat to New Zealand throughout the South Pacific. It's also important for the general public to be aware that our trade routes through Asia remain open and threat free at all times as well as being able to train our personnel to a high level, equal to the technology of other armed forces, and also integrate our forces with others, where ever that may be. It is no longer acceptable to believe that due to the benign level of any security threat within our region to not take our security arrangements and procurement seriously.

Keeping a small yet effective Defence Force like New Zealand's requires a lot of investment. However when needed its invaluable. Lastly, in any field of operation each section of the armed services can't operate effectively without the other. If it continues to do so under fire then there can only be one result. Heavy casualties. The Navy needs the Airforce for Air cover, the Army needs both the Navy and Airforce for an Air strike and the Airforce needs the Army and Navy for communications and for self protection in a war zone.

Security is and should always be the first priority of any country regardless of how benign that may be; being fully exposed to an aggressor and to be able to respond at a moments notice to any contingencies should they arise, is vital. That's if New Zealand should deploy its personnel and assets abroad in the future whether that's "peacekeeping" or a straight deployment.

I would also like to briefly comment on some of the current short falls that seem to have not been addressed across our three armed services. These are what I would call major fundamental operational issues that need urgent attention and I hope that these will be addressed in the coming years.

Royal New Zealand Navy.

The Labour government's policy on the Navy's strategy is good. But we have a fundamental weakness by not having a third ANZAC frigate or similar that is able to operate at the same level with the same equipment as the current ANZAC frigates. Why I mention this is for two reasons:

1-If we have one ANZAC frigate in dry dock for refitting and maintenance we have only one for deployment if an emergency arose. Another ANZAC would give the RNZN more options and put the "teeth back into the tiger". I think in light of the current Naval support assets that go abroad with the Anzac frigates, including the HMNZS Canterbury and HMNZS Endeavour, and the 2 OPVs, if they were deployed in a danger zone, we are extremely boarder line on making sure the maritime element of cover is there with just one or two ANZACs.

2-Currently our ANZACS are overworked. That means the ANZACS will need more maintenance work. Currently there is a stress on meeting our Exercise arrangements to keep the Navies systems at operational readiness, and Personnel working at levels required at war level, and Persian Gulf obligations with our partners, as well as putting stress on our personnel shore leave.

The OPVs will provide a limited option for operational use, but not in the capacity if required suddenly to replace the wider sea keeping ability such as the ANZAC. The OPVs are not adequatly equiped with Maritime survellience radar to be able to pick up trawlers and ships in the ocean and they lack proper self protection weapons systems such as a CIWS or a point missile defence system. It's worthy to note that the OPV is will be used for Patrol/Customs work, orientated towards Fisheries protection.

3-The new MRV (HMNZS Canterbury) being the capital ship for the RNZN, does not have enough self defensive weapon systems to protect itself in a war zone if called upon. There should be at least one CIWS if attacked by missiles or aircraft. If the current NZ government is serious about its mission and what it transports then it would make sense to install a VLS carrying the Sea sparrow or a short range anti Aircraft Missile system.

4-It would appear that as a result of the purchase of the OPVs that an additional number of SH-4Gs would need to be supplied to augment the number already in operation and have the OPVs operating with their full mission ratios.

Royal New Zealand Air Force.

The current policy on the Airforce is extremely poor. It's a big bird with its wings clipped and caged for that matter. Our own Airforce can do better. The RNZAF has in the past been a proud flag bearer of our countries abilities to get Defence jobs done yet our choices, by disbanding our small, yet effective fast jet fleet, was a nail in the coffin for specialised pilots and Defence force personnel that as a result went over seas. It's sad to see today that we still have these old yet still capable aircraft still sitting in our hanger at Woodbourne.

However some improvements have been made through the purchase of the 757 and the replacement of the Iroquois helicopter. Just to name a couple of upgrades. Within our Air Force lies a deep, yet untapped ability that this country needs to be able to perform to the task it needs so it's able to pull its weight fully with our partners. Let me list these issues.

1-New Zealand needs to look at a full replacement of our ageing C-130 Hercules Squadron with a longer reach Aircraft such as the very new Airbus A400M Transporter which has a maximum load range of 1700 nm (something New Zealand needs to reach places such as Fiji or Cairns or Darwin direct from Auckland without refuelling). The Aircraft is able to handle 2 x LAV 111s, or 116 fully equipped troops or 9 pallets of supplies.

This is mentioned in response that New Zealand requires a Military Transporter that is able to handle and carry heavier and vital equipment to an area of operations quickly rather than relying on HMNZS Canterbury to spend days on delivering the equipment and which the insurgency/skirmish would be over and done with. Thus costing the New Zealand government in having it sent in the first place. It's interesting to note that the A400M can be refuelled from the air and Australia's help with tanker support, could be invaluable.

2- There is a huge hole in our ability to be able to respond to a terror threat at sea and be able to neutralise it. As mentioned before, due to New Zealand's location we don't have an immediate threat coming from anywhere immediately. However, as New Zealand is being seen as a player against the war on terror, it can only be logical to suggest that New Zealand would be a country of target, like Australia, by would be terrorists using maritime routes to gain access into our country. Thus we need a rapid response air wing that is also able to interoperate with our Australian counterpart. This would mean a squadron of BAE Hawks or the AMX so as to maintain a ready reaction, fast attack wing and maritime surveillance platform, with a weapon that is able to neutralise this threat.

The BAE Hawke is an aircraft that is used as a trainer for the RAAF and our own pilots would have invaluable experience being able to train their skills with theirs on the same type of aircraft.

3-The P-3K Orion. Despite major overhauls of the fuselage and systems, the aircraft itself, despite being capable for maritime search and rescue, requires more advanced mission computers for surface warfare and weapons delivery packages. There is currently ECM packages on the existing mission computers and improved cockpit navigation upgrades, but no equivalent like the Australians have. This has a limiting factor on our personnel and Defence, which should be able to train and maintain systems for maritime warfare alongside our partners.

Let's make no mistake the P-3 is the only surveillance platform that is able to take this role currently and it's vital to maintain it. Its also important now to recognise that there is the possibility that Chinese and Indonesian submarines may be on the prowl through our waters undetected, not to mention the latest news that the Indonesian Navy has also now got a new submarine capability.

The current governments Long Term Defence Initiative requires the P-3s to be armed with an anti-ship missile such as the Harpoon, although from what I understand they haven't at this point selected the type. This does of course go some way into giving our Defence Forces the ability for a maritime strike, but it doesn't address the overall needs within our Air Force for rapid improved Air Strike capability.

4-Another suggestion is that instead of the New Zealand Armed Forces funding its own combat wing that we base a squadron of Australian F-18 Hornets or F-35s in New Zealand as part of a closer Defence arrangement. This would mean keeping Whenuapai or expand another base such as Woodbourne as a home base. The Defence Department could work around such a commitment and having this closer Defence relationship would further enhance our Defence relationship.

Royal New Zealand Army

The Current government's policy towards the Army of late has been very good. The government has seen the Army as being pivotal to being on the front line of warfighting and peace keeping. This has been reflected in the government opening its purse strings to almost the whole inventory in the New Zealand Army. This included of course the replacement of the APCs with the LAV 111, and the importing of the transport vehicles from Austria, as well as new purchases such as the Mistral Surface to Air Missile, Anti-Tank Javelin Missile, and Communications Systems. These to name a few.

However, the current government's policy of tilting the Army into one of "peacekeeping" is a disincentive for those who want to join the Army, whos role is to protect, serve, and put the skill they have learnt with other countries into good use.

To conclude, New Zealand will never field the same qualitive numbers of military hardware like Australia. We don't have budgets of larger western countries by putting ourselves in a position of competing with them. Its amazing to see that New Zealand has been able to contribute in the way it has to overseas commitments such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sinai, Solomon's, East Timor, Persian Gulf, and others. For such a small country we do give a lot of our forces and put them into peacekeeping roles that helps free up other Armed Forces to do other work in other countries.

In the future New Zealand will need to step up its Defence spending and Defence commitments as well and most significantly of all, integrate more fully with Australias Policy of Defence. This requires New Zealand to forward our forces to exercise alongside Australia and Asian countries appropriatly and just as importantly be able to deploy more effectively by using the New Zealand Armed Forces resources and platforms ourselves more independently. This will require more investment and focus by our government to turn round the years of neglect and bludging so we are making effective contributions in all areas of Defence.

About the Author

Author has extensive experience in International Travel Destinations and International Travel Law, having completed IATA and ATTTO qualifications. Having travelled extensively i have visited and stayed in China and Russia, and Europe in recent times.

I have in depth knowledge on New Zealand destinations as well as Defence issues. Having joined the Royal New Zealand Navy i have considerable experience in Defence issues within New Zealand and Globally.