I've read the comments on this site for, literally, years. In order to have credibility, it seems that constant reference has to be made to Helen Clarks' decision to impose major cutbacks on the NZDF - particularly the Skyhawks/Macchis. Here's a suggestion. The next time most of you (and it IS most of you) roll out an aside about 'Comrade Helen' or whatever, have a think about the reality confronting you right now with John Key and the Nationals doing sweet bugger-all for the NZDF. It's completely disingenuous to believe that Labour = bad and Nationals = good as far as the defence of New Zealand is concerned. It brings an interesting discussion down to the level of 14-year old snitchy schoolgirls (and there's plenty of websites for that.) So next time you want to have a little 'wah' over decisions made 13 years ago.....don't.
Something which you seem to have missed is the long term impact on defence matters a number of decisions and activities which Clark was involved in.
It is my understanding that Clark was either a member of or affiliated with a number of the peace and nuclear protest groups back in the mid-1980's. Quite apart from leading to the USS Belknap incident and then the effective collapse of the ANZUS alliance (these have been discussed in detail in various Kiwi defence threads on DT already) look at the impact such groups had on the RNZN frigate replacement programme which became the
ANZAC-class FFH. Such groups were able to colour the national perception to such a degree neither the Labour or National parties when in gov't were able to exercise the options for two additional FFH's. This meant that for a number of years, the RNZN has had a shortage of hulls available for combat deployments if needed, or even for general patrolling which is always needed. This shortage in ability to patrol was one of the reasons behind the Project Protector, since even Labour and the Greens ultimately recognized and admitted that two ocean-going hulls was no where near sufficient to patrol an EEZ the size of NZ's.
Tying in with this has been the reduction in funding for Vote Defence, with current spending hovering around 0.7% of GDP in real terms. This has of course occurred or been sustained under both Labour and National gov't but if one looks to reports which came out under Clark that, "New Zealand is in a benign security environment," one can see that the average Kiwi has been (IMO mis-)led to believe that NZ is safe and that nothing can or does threaten the way of life for the average Kiwi.
Under Clark directly was of course the retirement without replacement of the A-4K Skyhawks and the fast jet trainers the MB-339's. This retirement occurred after the terror attacks in the US in 2001 using hijacked commercial airliners. As a result of the retirement, the NZDF lost all fast air capabilities, and this loss of capability has been felt by the NZDF. While the A-4K Skyhawks were hardly the 'ideal' air superiority aircraft, they could conduct some air-to-air operations, but also perform CAS, ground attack and maritime strike. In recent years, their loss has been felt because the NZDF no longer had assets available to conduct joint training utilizing fast jet air support. The RAAF had to send in a pair for F/A-18 Hornets to given NZ ground troops practice calling in and working with CAS prior to deployment. Now that the capability is gone, it can of course be regenerated, but the cost to do so would be more than it would have cost to retain the capability, and it would take years to get it back.
In 2003 the decision was made to conduct a SLEP for the C-130H's to get another 10 - 15 years service out of them, since that would be less expensive than replacing them with new aircraft. At the time of this decision, the newest C-130H in RNZAF service was ~34 years old. As it has been turning out, upgrading aircraft that old is nearly expensive as it would have been to purchase entirely new, up to date current aircraft.
Also in 2003 was the decision to purchase the two B757-200's as replacements for the retiring B727's which were brought into service back in 1981. As has already been gone into recently, NZ paid nearly as much for decade old, 2nd hand B757's as brand new B757-200's direct from Boeing would have cost before Boeing closed the production line. Also the choice seems to have been made around or after Boeing decided to close the B757 line. In effect, NZ paid a premium for a pair of soon to be orphan aircraft. Then, because of availability issues stemming from the choice to extend and not replace the C-130H's, the RNZAF had an airlift shortage. IIRC at one point, out of the five C-130's only one was available for a needed mission and when it went to take off, an equipment failure kept it on the ground. This then led to a B757 modification programme which was about as pricey as the purchase of the B757's themselves to add a cargo door and the option to load pallets in place of seating in the passenger deck. This programme also kept them out of service for years, including during the unrest in Thailand back in 2010. IIRC as a result of the aircraft undergoing modifications (both C-130H and B757-200) and maintenance reqs, training and other operations, the RNZAF ended up having no airlift available to evacuate Kiwis from Thailand.
In 2003 - 2004 105 examples of the NZLAV entered service with Army as replacements for the Vietnam era M113 tracked APC's. The 30 year old APC's had reliability problems during their service in the Balkans in the 90's as part of a UN peace keeping force. The decision was made to go with wheeled vehicles instead of another tracked APC design because wheeled vehicles are more efficient to operate on roadways than tracks. The loss of some offroad mobility was not considered important because it was felt that the NZLAV's would get deployed as part of Kiwi peacekeeping contingents and therefore the risk of entering active combat zones or requiring that sort of mobility was minimal. The selection of the NZLAV was also part of what seemed to be a re-roling or reorientation of the NZDF away from the mission of defending NZ and NZ interests, into being a constabulary and international peacekeeping force. Looking back at a post by me from
November 2009, at one point 20% of Army was deployed away from NZ on international deployments. IIRC at the time there were about a dozen different areas NZ had personnel deployed to. All because it was felt by the gov't of the time that agreed to NZ committing to the various international deployments that it was important for NZ to be a good international citizen and having so many deployments raised the stature of NZ in the international community. It is perhaps worthwhile noting that Clark has been a UN administrator for the last four years.
Now if people wish, I could also then discuss in some detail some of the implications of the Project Protector, though the proper places to really do so would either be in the RNZN thread or the general NZDF thread. I could also go into the completely false notion which prior gov'ts seem to have instilled in the average Kiwi that anything further than the NZ EEZ is not a potential threat to NZ interests
At this point I have covered some of the decisions made involving all NZDF services. What has not been really discussed so far is time. Many of these capabilities which have been retained, or the platforms which have been selected will likely serve the NZDF for a generation. Barring a major service issue or capability shortfall, the kit the NZDF gets under the watch of one particular gov't will likely be expected to serve through a number of successor gov'ts. Given how much can change over the course of thirty years, making decisions based on idealogy and how one wishes the future to turn out instead of how it could turn out does seem rather dangerous for a gov't to do. I hope I have made my point.
-Cheers
