Post by flyjoe180 on Oct 5, 2008 11:45:12 GMT 12
Defence rethink urged
Thursday, 02 October 2008
New Zealand needs a major defence rethink to identify medium to long-term threats and move away from planning based on World War 1 strategies, says a defence commentator.
Victoria University's Centre for Strategic Studies senior fellow Dr Lance Beath said New Zealand also needed to move away from a defence strategy based on the army with the navy and air force in support roles, and move towards more warships for the navy and a return to a combat air force.
Dr Beath, who has worked for the Ministry of Defence managing strategic and international policy, said New Zealand must look outside the Pacific Basin at other high-risk areas, including the Middle East.
"We tend to think of the Pacific as being a very benign and safe and low-level place and we don't make much provision for our future defence."
Dr Beath told a defence conference on security in the Pacific in Wellington last week New Zealand needed to be better prepared across all levels of the military spectrum and and spend more than the 1 percent of the gross domestic product it currently does on defence.
That meant all three services had to come under close scrutiny.
"The approach of the current Government which puts the army first and uses the air force and the navy in supporting roles will no longer be appropriate looking to the future.
"We are living in a maritime zone and therefore need to put the focus on our maritime forces."
He said the army needed a new role.
"We would need to restructure the army and re-role it as some kind of an embarked marine combat brigade."
He said defence thinking needed to put more emphasis on the navy and the air force with a restructured army to support it.
That would mean more warships for the navy than the two frigates it already had - both of which were about to go into a mid life upgrade.
"Now is not too soon to begin thinking about the navy beyond the current navy. What are we going to replace the current two frigates with?"
He said there was no doubt the country should return to a combat air force. The Labour government axed the air force's Skyhawk combat aircraft in 2001 after reversing a National decision to replace the ageing Skyhawks with F16 jet fighters.
"The air force, like the navy, will need an additional combat arm. Whether we are taking manned or unmanned aircraft is hard to know."
He said it was not wrong to rebuild the army, but the question had to be asked "where next?"
An army rebuild needed to focus on a more rapid deployment of combat army units.
"There is an irony that a government that set itself a task of building itself a world-class capable army able to respond at short notice has ended up with an army which has got longer states of readiness than the one it inherited."
He said his view, which was not widely shared, was that today's army was no better equipped for the emerging strategic environment than the army was when the Labour Government came to power nine years ago.
"Do we still need a kind of First World War structure to generate the flexible combat element we look for increasingly?
"I am not convinced that a structure which suited the First World War or even the Boer War is likely to be the optimum structure for the 21st century."
"We don't seem to have learnt much about essential requirements for high readiness, well-equipped, well-trained troops and troops we can support with our own air assets."
It was impossible to train troops in "air-land integration", he said.
"That renders questionable the Government's thrust for a world credible army which can't be done without having the ability to train for air-land and maritime-land integration.'
The navy's new multi-role ship HMNZS Canterbury was a step ahead, he said.
- NZPA
www.stuff.co.nz/4713903a11.html
Thursday, 02 October 2008
New Zealand needs a major defence rethink to identify medium to long-term threats and move away from planning based on World War 1 strategies, says a defence commentator.
Victoria University's Centre for Strategic Studies senior fellow Dr Lance Beath said New Zealand also needed to move away from a defence strategy based on the army with the navy and air force in support roles, and move towards more warships for the navy and a return to a combat air force.
Dr Beath, who has worked for the Ministry of Defence managing strategic and international policy, said New Zealand must look outside the Pacific Basin at other high-risk areas, including the Middle East.
"We tend to think of the Pacific as being a very benign and safe and low-level place and we don't make much provision for our future defence."
Dr Beath told a defence conference on security in the Pacific in Wellington last week New Zealand needed to be better prepared across all levels of the military spectrum and and spend more than the 1 percent of the gross domestic product it currently does on defence.
That meant all three services had to come under close scrutiny.
"The approach of the current Government which puts the army first and uses the air force and the navy in supporting roles will no longer be appropriate looking to the future.
"We are living in a maritime zone and therefore need to put the focus on our maritime forces."
He said the army needed a new role.
"We would need to restructure the army and re-role it as some kind of an embarked marine combat brigade."
He said defence thinking needed to put more emphasis on the navy and the air force with a restructured army to support it.
That would mean more warships for the navy than the two frigates it already had - both of which were about to go into a mid life upgrade.
"Now is not too soon to begin thinking about the navy beyond the current navy. What are we going to replace the current two frigates with?"
He said there was no doubt the country should return to a combat air force. The Labour government axed the air force's Skyhawk combat aircraft in 2001 after reversing a National decision to replace the ageing Skyhawks with F16 jet fighters.
"The air force, like the navy, will need an additional combat arm. Whether we are taking manned or unmanned aircraft is hard to know."
He said it was not wrong to rebuild the army, but the question had to be asked "where next?"
An army rebuild needed to focus on a more rapid deployment of combat army units.
"There is an irony that a government that set itself a task of building itself a world-class capable army able to respond at short notice has ended up with an army which has got longer states of readiness than the one it inherited."
He said his view, which was not widely shared, was that today's army was no better equipped for the emerging strategic environment than the army was when the Labour Government came to power nine years ago.
"Do we still need a kind of First World War structure to generate the flexible combat element we look for increasingly?
"I am not convinced that a structure which suited the First World War or even the Boer War is likely to be the optimum structure for the 21st century."
"We don't seem to have learnt much about essential requirements for high readiness, well-equipped, well-trained troops and troops we can support with our own air assets."
It was impossible to train troops in "air-land integration", he said.
"That renders questionable the Government's thrust for a world credible army which can't be done without having the ability to train for air-land and maritime-land integration.'
The navy's new multi-role ship HMNZS Canterbury was a step ahead, he said.
- NZPA
www.stuff.co.nz/4713903a11.html
