New Zealand's decision last week to scrap its air combat capability has caused a furore in Wellington and led to questions being raised about what the country can contribute to international operations. But is New Zealand's move so radical, and is it not the direction in which a number of air forces around the world are inextricably headed?
The New Zealand Government argues that 17 updated but nevertheless elderly McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawks and an equal number of Aermacchi MB339s does not provide much of a stick to shake at anybody. The government also says the aircraft have not fired a shot in anger - although an A-4 did fire on a Taiwanese squid-fishing boat that broke the territorial waters limit in 1976.
The real issue, however, is not the aircraft that exist today but replacing them with modern equipment, as well as weapons and the support infrastructure. The same problem is facing several countries globally which have few aircraft in frontline service and which will have to fund replacements in the next few years. The expense led to Norway abandoning a fighter competition last year and Greece postponing a Eurofighter purchase earlier this year. Some European air forces have only three fighter squadrons, and the cost of replacement aircraft could mean that this will be reduced to two squadrons, or possibly one large squadron and an expanded capability operational conversion unit in future.
New Zealand could maintain an air strike capability as it is considering arming its Lockheed Martin P-3KOrions and Kaman SH-2G Super Seasprites with air-to-surface missiles - such consideration indicates that the Skyhawks provided a capability that Wellington wishes to retain, albeit without the expense of dedicated aircraft. The P-3s and SH-2s will need modifications to fire such weapons. This particularly applies to the P-3s, which were to be upgraded until the government abandoned the programme. Wellington says it wishes to upgrade the Orions with commercial systems, although in reality New Zealand is likely to be forced down the route of using another nation's modification, one in which the non-recurring costs are already amortised.
A central tenet of the New Zealand defence review is to strengthen the army to better suit peace-keeping. An equipment acquisition plan will allow the army to ensure it has systems that are interoperable with other regional forces such as Australia and to ensure commonality with other likely allies, such as the USA. New Zealand's decision to strengthen its land forces comes at a time, however, when the USA is likely to turn its attention more towards Asia, which will likely boost the capabilities of the air force and navy and scale back army expansion. The former are able to deploy from the Continental USA rather than require local basing and, of course, air and naval forces are considered less likely than ground forces to sustain casualties.
Whether the New Zealand model will provide a basis for other countries to follow suit remains to be seen. New Zealand's geographical location - hidden behind Australia and thousands of miles of sea, which would stretch any potential enemy's logistics tail - is unique. Isolation is a great defence. Like Ireland, which also has no combat aircraft, the defence of the nation is more about protecting its economic resources, which requires large area surveillance. Other countries struggling to fund defence requirements are much closer to their neighbours and those that are part of NATO have commitments to their allies.
The furore in New Zealand is probably more to do with national pride than anything else and it is unlikely that the next government, if formed by the opposition, will be in a position to do much about it. More widely Wellington's move will provide food for thought - what in reality is the threat and what is needed to counter it?
The likelihood is that few countries will follow suit in the near term but it may be that in the medium term more air forces opt out of being a combat force to concentrate on transport and other less aggressive roles.
Source: Flight International
