Kerre Woodham: The conversation around replacing our ageing warships

I would like to get your feedback on whether or not we should be upgrading our warships. New Zealand's two main warships will reach the end of their working lives within about a decade, and Cabinet must decide by 2027 what should replace them. 

The way we're going it'd be a fleet of jet skis. The choice will shape the country's ability to help keep its trade routes open for a generation, according to retired Major General John Howard, who's a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. He argues the decision about what to buy, if to buy, deserves far more scrutiny than it's ever done before. He says almost everything New Zealand sells and buys travels by ship. About 99% of its trade, measured by volume, moves by sea: dairy, meat, fuel, machinery. We're also responsible for one of the world's largest stretches of ocean, about 4.1 million square kilometres. 

He says if the decision on the frigates is delayed or the wrong capability is chosen, New Zealand could spend years without a warship able to operate in contested waters alongside its allies, and the skills, the systems, and the experience behind that capability would take a generation to rebuild. If we don't have a navy and then decide that we want one, it's not going to be as simple as buying ships. You have to train up a whole generation of command structure, troops, sailors, the like. 

No argument from me there, but you would have to wonder why we spent $600 to $700 million on upgrades to the Te Mana and Te Kaha if they're going to be obsolete within a few years. Major General Howard retired says we are a serious maritime nation – what we decide here will show whether we intend to stay one. 

Now I've had no argument with his thoughts so far, but this one I would have to dispute. Can we seriously be considered a serious maritime nation if our naval fleet comprises two frigates, two support vessels, and four basically cop cars for the sea? We have of course one at the bottom of the ocean, but that was a survey ship and wouldn't have really counted. Norway, which is the same size as New Zealand, has a naval fleet of 69 vessels: submarines, frigates, corvettes, minesweepers, minehunters, you know, pick a ship, any ship, and they've got it. And sure, they are far, far richer than we are, and the Russian bear is close enough to them that they can feel its fur. But come on, a serious maritime nation does not have two warships and one survey ship at the bottom of the ocean. 

I can understand why we haven't made our defence and our interoperative capability a priority over recent years when we have been lucky enough to have lived in a relative state of peace and calm. But the way we are now, the way the world is now, we need to decide whether we want to be part of serious alliances and play our part or whether we just bludge off our mates, who may or may not choose to help us depending on whether they can be arsed or what we've got that they want. There'll be no guarantees. 

You only have to look at Europe to see what happens when you rely on another country for your defence. All of a sudden, they pull the plug and Europe is left scrambling. All of a sudden, they're having to play catch up for the past 30-odd years on their defence spending, on their defence capability, because they cannot rely on the US anymore. 

We don't have to have a traditional navy. It doesn't have to look like it did 50 years ago. With changes to technology, the way wars are fought, wars are won – if you could ever say that wars can be won. But the way wars and battles are fought now, you'd need different technology, different capability, but we have to do some spending surely. For those who say we don't need to, look at Europe. The US said you've done nothing for us, you haven't spent any money, look after yourselves. And now they really are playing catch up. 

We can stand on the shores to the beat of rhythmic drums and sing 'Give Peace a Chance' while people take what they want, and that is a valid option. Even with a fleet we could afford, we're not going to be able to repel a serious invader. But surely, we have to play our part if we want to be considered a serious maritime nation? I would consider that playing our part in an interoperative alliance. That's what we have to do, or that's what we have to make the decision on. I'm all for doing our bit and not bludging off our mates. I'd love to hear your thoughts. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News Talks,
he'd be.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
I would like to get your feedback on whether or
not we should be upgrading our warships. New Zealand's two
main worships will reach the end of their working lives
within about a decade, and Cabinet must decide by twenty
twenty seven what should replace them. The right we're going

(00:32):
it'd be a fleet of jet skis. The choice will
shape the country's ability to help keep its trade routes
open for a generation. According to Major General retired John Howard,
who's a senior fellow at the New Zealand Initiative, he
argues the decision about what to buy, if to buy,

(00:55):
deserves far more scrutiny than it's ever done before. He says,
almost everything New Zealand sells and buys travels by ship.
About ninety nine percent of its true measured by volume
moves by sea, dairy, meat, fuel machinery. We're also responsible
for one of the world's largest stretches of ocean, about

(01:17):
four point one million square kilometers. He says, if the
decision on the frigates is delayed or the wrong capability
is chosen. New Zealand could spend years without a worship
able to operate in contested waters alongside its allies, and
the skills, the systems, and the experience behind that capability

(01:38):
would take a generation to rebuild. So if we don't
have a navy and then decide that we want one,
it's not going to be as simple as buying ships.
You have to train up a whole generation of command structure, troops, sailors,
the like. No argument from me there, but you would

(01:58):
have to wonder why we spent six to seven hundred
million dollars on upgrades to the Tamana and Takaha if
they're going to be obsolete eat within a few years.
Major General Hard retired says we are a serious maritime nation.
What we decide here will show whether we intend to
stay one. Now I've had no argument with his with

(02:23):
his thoughts so far, but this one I would have
to dispute. Can we seriously be considered a serious maritime
nation if our naval fleet comprises two frigates to support
vessels and four basically cop cars for the sea. We have,

(02:45):
of course one at the bottom of the ocean, but
that was a survey ship. And wouldn't have really counted. Norway,
which is the same size as New Zealand, has a
naval fleet of sixty nine vessels, submarines, frigates, corvettes, mine sweepers,
mine hunters, you know, Pickershapian ship and they've got it.

(03:06):
And sure they are far far richer than we are
in the Russian bear is close enough to them that
they could feel its fur. But come on, a serious
maritime nation does not have two warships and one serveyship
at the bottom of the ocean. I can understand why
we haven't made our defense and our interoperative capability a

(03:29):
priority over recent years, when we have been lucky enough
to have lived in a relative state of peace and calm.
But the way we are now, the way the world
is now, we need to decide whether we want to
be part of serious alliances and play our part, or
whether we just blood off our mates, who may or

(03:51):
may not choose to help us, depending on whether they
can be asked or what we've got that they want.
There'll be no guarantees. You only have to look at
Europe to see what happens when you rely on another
country tree for your defense. All of a sudden they
pulled the plug and Europe is left scrambling. All of

(04:13):
a sudden, they're having to play catch up for the
past thirty odd years on their defense spending on the
defense capability, because they cannot rely on the US anymore.
So we don't have to have a traditional navy. It
doesn't have to look like it did fifty years ago.

(04:34):
You know, with changes technology the way wars of fort
wars are one if you could ever say that wars
can be won, but the way wars and battles of
fort now you'd need different technology, different capability. But we
have to do some spending. Surely for those who say

(04:56):
we don't need to look at Europe, the US said,
you've done nothing for us, you haven't been any money,
look after yourselves, and now they really are playing catch up.
Now we can stand on the shores to the beat

(05:19):
of rhythmic drums and sing, give piece a chance, will
people take what they want? And that that is a
valid option, even with a fleet. Even with a fleet
we could afford, we're not going to be able to
repel a serious invader, but surely we have to play

(05:41):
our part if we want to be considered a serious
maritime nation. I would consider that playing our part and
an interoperative alliance. That's what we have to do, or
that's what we have to make the decision on. I'm
all for doing a bit and not bludging off our mates.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Speaker 1 (06:00):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news Talks. It'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.