Editorial: Air strike force shot to ribbons

There is something awry about politicians sitting around a cabinet table to decide technical elements of defence, much as cabinets of a previous era used to choose the equipment for national airlines. True, defence is a direct charge on the taxpayer and its equipment can be horrendously expensive, but questions such as those raised by the F-16 jet fighters are best left to military minds.

That is true also of a larger question: should the country maintain an air strike capacity? Politicians are amateurs when it comes to fashioning a defence force. Their role is to assess the country's security needs, set clear expectations of the armed services, decide an overall budget - and leave it to professionals to choose the components of force required to best meet those expectations.

Instead, we have a Government that had barely found the cabinet room before it was ordering a review of the F-16 acquisition. And now, having received the review by former MP Derek Quigley, who recommends that the lease of half the number of aircraft should proceed, the Government has decided it knows better. Mr Quigley was not enamoured of the F-16 deal when he began his inquiry. Similarly, the previous Defence Minister, Max Bradford, had been sceptical about re-equipping the strike force before he came to the portfolio. Both men revised their views when they looked and listened more closely. That should tell Labour something.

The new Government agrees that the F-16 lease-to-purchase deal with the United States was a good one, exchange rate fluctuations aside. But it simply doesn't want the fighters. The decision can only mean that Labour does not want an air strike force of any kind, for it cannot expect a better offer. The Government promises, of course, to hold a full defence review before any decision to do away with the attack squadron. But the Quigley exercise does not give confidence that the findings of a full review will be followed.

It is all too clear that the new Government's conception of defence goes not much further than Army peacekeeping abroad. If it means to blunt the country's air strike capacity, then it may as well wind up the Air Force, giving the Orion maritime patrol craft to the Navy and the Hercules heavy transports to the Army. Without fighter jets, the Air Force simply would not attract young pilots or be able to train flyers to a peak.

And without a proper Air Force, New Zealand's other armed services would be unable to exercise regularly with and against supersonic aircraft, and unable to go into combat zones unless allies provided air cover. It is ironic that those who once contributed crucially to the demise of Anzus should now be putting New Zealand into a position of greater reliance on defence partners.

Our principal partner, Australia, reads the F-16 decision as just one more example of New Zealand's failure to carry its weight. The F-16s, capable ground-attack aircraft, would have fitted neatly into a combined operation with the RAAF's F/A18s, designed for air superiority. But it is not to be and we cannot blame Australians for resenting the extra cost they may now incur to provide a balanced defence of the region. The country's reputation will be harmed not only with former allies but in Asia and other places where it is important to show the flag.

It is bad enough that any Government takes it upon itself to select defence equipment. To have those decisions made by one that does not believe in a balanced force is to compromise our security.