Editorial: Navy fobbed off again with second best

The Royal New Zealand Navy has little reason to think kindly of politicians. Too often it has borne the embarrassing consequences of defence spending on the cheap or daft decision-making. Think back to the persistent breakdowns of the cruiser Royalist or, a few years ago, the inability of the Charles Upham to perform its roles in anything but the smoothest of seas. Now, the scene is being set for the Navy to become a laughing stock again.

After some prevarication, the Minister of Defence has admitted that $500 million worth of new vessels will be built mainly to civilian, not military, standards. Only weapons systems, communications and aviation capability will be made of the sterner stuff that fighting ships require to withstand combat. That means the new equipment - a large multi-role ship, at least two offshore patrol vessels and new or upgraded inshore patrol boats - will not have the backup systems and damage-control capabilities expected of a naval ship. Nor will their hulls and superstructures be up to military strength. Never mind that they are expected to secure sea lanes that traverse some of the world's roughest waters.

The Government denies, of course, that this is yet another example of skimping on defence spending. It talks lamely of the vessels not being expected to participate in a "war fighting situation". If so, why has it said previously that the multi-role ship will have 40mm to 76mm guns? And why is it blind to the updated long-term defence development plan, reported yesterday, that forecast increasing air, surface and underwater threats within the Asia-Pacific region and beyond?

Certainly, it is envisaged that the vessel will undertake humanitarian relief projects and fisheries and customs work. But its main job will be to support military operations by transporting Army troops and equipment. That, inevitably, will involve entering combat zones. And that means that not only should the ship have at least the capability to mount stronger armament but it must be built to the highest standards. Anything less demonstrates a disregard for the lives of the men and women who will enter hazardous waters aboard it.

The new offshore patrol boats must, likewise, be built to military standards. Only vessels boasting considerable robustness and speed will be able effectively to tackle customs work and fisheries protection in the Tasman Sea. If they are neither sturdy nor swift, collaring suspicious vessels in the outer reaches of our 200-mile exclusive economic zone will be beyond them - and the Navy's two Anzac frigates will have to resume work for which they were never intended.

Skimping on spending by building Navy ships to civilian standards is bad enough. But it must be remembered that, in the first instance, this re-equipment is an exercise in cost-cutting. A maritime forces review characterised it as the minimum acceptable means of providing sea lane surveillance and security. Even then, it said, there would be gaps in the Navy's thin blue line. A Government aware of its defence responsibilities, both regionally and to its own citizens, and mindful of an increasingly turbulent world would have bought a third Anzac frigate and ordered the Project Sirius upgrade of the Air Force's anti-submarine Orions' radar.

The Government's blinkered thinking on defence would never countenance that. At least, it recognised the frigate Canterbury's pensioning-off in 2005 would leave a yawning maritime surveillance gap. But having taken the easy replacement option, it should have stopped cutting corners. Instead, it has reverted to grudging type. At the very least, vessels built to civilian standard are likely to lay the Navy open to embarrassment. How long will it be before the rescuer becomes the rescued as the ships' shortcomings are revealed? At worst, the crews will suffer more material consequences. Either way, this is false economics.