New frigates

Press, 12 September 1988, Page 16

New frigates

Sir,—l wish to make a correction to your report on the meeting "Case against the frigates” (September 8). It was sponsored by the Christchurch Peace Forum, of which the N.Z. Nuclear-free Peacemaking Association is a member.— Yours, etc., LARRY ROSS, Secretary, ' N.Z. Nuclear-free Peacemaking Association. September 8, 1988.

Sir,—Australia has threatened to “do” us if we do not buy four unnecessary frigates to hunt, very expensively, for nonexistent submarines for $2.198, plus extras. We do not need expensive surveillance equipment; we need overseas debt repayment, jobs, vastly bigger social services and environmental protection and recovery. These are urgent and superior causes. No-one of intelligence and integrity having correct information thinks we need them. Australia wants the sales and service. Foreign Affairs and National want us back in A.N.U.S. — the frigates our reentrance fee. The navy does not want them — unnecessary, exorbitantly priced. The army and air .force do not want them — tliey have their own shopping lists. Government departments could spend the money better., Sensible people do not want them — war should be stopped not developed. If only everyone would write to the Government condemning the frigates and pointing out better uses for $2.198. — Yours, etc.,

SUSAN TAYLOR. September 8, 1988.

Sir, —Your reply to J. Gallagher’s letter (September 8) reveals that you are clearly not familiar with the design parameters of either, the Dutch M-class or Meko 200-class frigates involved in the Anzac frigates debate. They are absolutely not multi-purpose vessels, as you

claim, but are, in fact, almost exclusively equipped with extremely expensive antisubmarine technology. They are not designed for fisheries patrol, troop-carrying, evacuating New Zealand nationals from turbulent situations such as occurred in Fiji, or even for civil defence and rescue work in the Pacific Islands. Had they been designed as multi-purpose vessels (such as the Navy’s Monowai, the vessel chosen to go to the aid of New Zealand citizens in Fiji after the initial military coup), they would certainly be larger than the proposed frigates, better equipped, and cost less than SISOM each. —Yours, etc., DAVID McMILLAN. September 8, 1988.

[Mr McMillan raises some interesting points and cites his references in footnotes. However, in saying categorically that they are not multi-purpose vessels, he fails to distinguish between the vessel design and the equipment carried. It is up to the country which orders a ship to specify whether it should carry anti-submarine or other technology, according to the tasks envisaged. A vessel may be regarded as a platform able to carry all kinds of equipment for a variety of tasks. In this sense it is properly regarded as a multipurpose vessel. The Turkish Navy appears to be equipping its Meko 200-class with a whole range of sophisticated fighting equipment, much of which would seem to be irrelevant for New Zealand’s purposes. But the experts in the Australian and New Zealand navies still consider the design appropriate to the needs of the two countries.—Editor.]