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]