“Comments by Labour MP Phil Goff that the incoming Clark government in 2000 simply followed a decision by the outgoing National government in 1999 to purchase 102 LAV III armed personnel carriers (APC) is, at best, trifling with the truth” said Max Bradford, National’s Defence Minister in 1997-1999.
Mr Goff’s comments were made in response to criticism that the Labour government’s decision to commit over $750m to purchase the LAVs was foolhardy, given that only 11 have seen deployment since their purchase in 2002 (see RNZ report (1) below). “In 1998, the National government made a decision to purchase only 35 LAVs, which was seen as sufficient at the time. The purchase included a number of LAVs as maintenance and recovery vehicles, so there were fewer than 35 available for combat purposes” said Mr Bradford.
“Although National decided in principle to 102 vehicles at the time, we had serious doubts that 102 were ever to be needed, hence the decision to buy only 35 as replacements for the M113 APCs. There was a serious need for other defence force equipment replacements ahead of the full LAV purchase.
- These included: a third frigate for the Navy, which never proceeded and only now are the implications being fel
- new helicopters to replace the 15 or so Iroquois, eventually replaced by 6 NH90s
- replacements for the A4 Skyhawks: the Clark government scrapped the air combat wing,
- to help pay for the 102 LAVs replacements for the then-aging Hercules, which only now
- is being considered replacement of the then VIP transport aircraft with 2 Boeing 757s
“When the Clark government announced the decision to buy 102 LAVs, there was considerable criticism at the time. Indeed, the purchase process was the subject of an Auditor-General Office thorough review and report to Parliament. The Auditor-General found serious shortcomings in Labour’s decision on the LAVs. Now Labour’s chickens coming home to roost” “I am disappointed that Mr Goff should seek to shift the blame for a stupid Labour government decision in 2000 to proceed with the purchase of 102 LAVs, as the responsibility rests solely with the Clark government, not National. Certain very senior officers in the Army at the time have to share the responsibility for poor advice and a poor decision.
We should be thankful that the problems within the hierarchy of the NZDF at the time have now been fixed and I trust the public can now rely on the integrity of the Defence Force to give the appropriate advice to the government today in a difficult international environment.”
“Today’s geopolitical landscape certainly isn’t the “incredibly benign strategic environment” that Helen Clark confidently stated in 2000 should apply to defence procurement decisions, so we must get the very best defence advice nowadays” concluded Mr Bradford.
As far as I know this is a public statement from former Defence Minster Max Bradford . I have reproduced it in full in the interests of highlighting the way successive governments have either guttered the NZDF or done to nothing what so ever to repair the damage inflicted by Phil Goff and Helen Clark.
Max's statement first appeared on Kiwi Blog. I can be reached at the email address listed on the Contact and About page if Max has any issue with his statement being reproduced in this article.
A lack of a 3rd or 4th Anzac Class frigate would highly likely leave the RNZN without a combat capable warship available in the event of a emergency situation. If both HMNZS Te Mana and Te Kaha are being upgraded or are in port for maintenance/resting the crews , New Zealand , our trade routes and interests over seas are left defenceless.
A major red flag concerning the NH90's was how they weren’t deployed to Vanuatu. The NZDF assistance to Vanuatu in the wake of Cyclone Pam was well covered by the New Zealand Media. The question is how much does the NH90 handicap reduce the NZDF amphibious capabilities?
Space doesn't permit me to give the reader a comprehensive answer. The answer may be compared to trying to start a car that has a flat battery. A part of modern day amphibious operations is using helicopters to air lift troops from (in the NZDF case HMNZS Canterbury ) to the sea ports and airfields in the area of operations. The troops who land directly on the coast link up with the units that were airlifted at the start of the operation. If the NZDF had to mount a stand alone amphibious operation , does it have the helicopters needed to air lift troops?
Before I address Max's next point I need to explain my reasoning to the reader.The RNZAF and the RNZN are the 2 services that are the most integral to the defence of New Zealand and our commerce. By far the bulk of New Zealand's commerce is transported by sea. In the event of a limited conflict breaking out in Asia between China and Vietnam a clear threat will exist to trade routes that New Zealand relies on for our exporters and imports.
When the Chinese invade the central pacific the NZDF role will be the defence of New Zealand . Defending commerce aka escorting the oil tanker that is bound for New Zealand becomes a part of the coming war. The question becomes how far will the Chinese advance beyond the Central Pacific? If the reader would like me to address this point in a future article leave a comment below.
The RNZF and RNZAF will be integral to escorting commerce , ASW and MCW in conjunction with our allies/coalition partners. The same goes for injecting any Chinese expeditionary force that are taking part in their invasion of the Central Pacific.
In a future war the Army's movements will be constrained by a couple of factors. The RNZAF air lift capabilities will determine the number of troops and the quantity of supplies that can be flown to destinations in the South Pacific. The limitations of NZDF Joint Amphibious Task Force combat capabilities fall beyond the scope of this article. The limitations will either see the Joint Amphibious Task Force destroyed by enemy action or never set sail.
Now that with all that in mind the Labour government axed what is commonly known as the RNZAF air combat wing. The logic employed by the government of the day can only be called insanity of the highest order. Any Minster of Defence that advocates removing the RNZF ability to provide air cover to the Army and Navy should be carted off to a lunatic asylum. The same goes for the current government who have failed address this capability gap.
Staying with the last Labour government they opted to upgrade the C-130's for one simple reason. By in effect adding bubble gum to extend the life of the aircraft they were able to ensure that a future government foots the bill for their replacement. This may backfire on former Defence Minster Phil Goff and Labour. Labour may well been returned to government by voters when the time comes for the payment and delivery of the C-130's replacement aircraft.
Can the public really trust the NZDF to give the government of the day sound advice? Before the reader feels outraged at my question they should take a step a back for a moment. To my knowledge in 2001 none of the NZDF senior commanders questioned the wisdom of scrapping the air combat arm of the RNZAF. Nor has any senior NZDF Commander since that time.
The reader may argue that senior NZDF commanders may have argued against the actions undertaken by the last Labour and lack of action from the current government. Did any of the NZDF commanders advise Goff against the policy and procurement decisions his nutty ideology demanded? If they did make such objections why didn't they make them public at the time or after they retired?
The the defence policy's of successive government's can only be described as lunacy. The reader ought to bear mind that Max has only touched the surface. My aim in future articles will be to go below the surface and to the depths of the insanity. These articles will come after I have concluded the series on New Zealand role in the fight against Isis. I have been delayed in finishing up the series due to personal issues.
The idea that New Zealand backyard was incredibly benign strategic environment and would remain so was the greatest lie Helen Clark ever told. The planning and funding for China's massive naval build up would have been well under way. In between 2008 -15 the People's Liberation Army Navy submarine and surface fleet was greatly modernised/expanded.
China's ongoing military build up and tension over territorial disputes with neighbouring countries has happened under John Key's watch. Yet because on defence policy he shares his predecessors ideology he is blind to how the international situation is heading for global conflict.
The first duty of the New Zealand government is the defence of the realm. Thanks to the warped left wing ideology of Clark and now Key the first duty of the government is now seen as pandering to the Useless Nations in order to get a seat on the Security Council.
Countless causalities will be incurred by the NZDF in future conflicts/wars because of the lunacy of successive governments. Coupled with the NZDF lacking the combat capabilities necessary to defend the South West Pacific against a would be aggressor and I am left with some very serious concerns.
Make no mistake the next generation always pays the price for the mistakes of current political leaders. The historical parallel is how the failed peace after WW1 would see the next generation pay a heavy price in blood. I really do wonder how the kids who still in school will fare with the burden the current generation is leaving them. Now they aren't old enough to buy alcohol. In 5 to 10 years they will face the kind of situation there WW2 forefathers did ; cleaning up a bloody mess.
No comments:
Post a Comment