RNZAF jets sold!! [Archive]

Ex Douglas Driver

12th Sep 2005, 22:41

This is from Mark Burton's, (the Minister of Defence) press release page. http://labour.org.nz/labour_team/mps/mps/mark_burton/news/Surplus/index.html

Were they ever involved in active service?

No

Why did the Government decide they were no longer required?

The Government Defence Statement of 2001 called for a “refocused and updated Air Force”:

"The recently completed review of the options for an air combat capability confirmed the finding of the 1998 Air Combat Review chaired by Sir Wilson Whineray that the air combat force equipped with the A-4 Skyhawk in its current state would be a marginal asset to any multinational coalition, and its operational utility will continue to decline. Retaining a force that has never been, and is unlikely ever to be, used would require in excess of one billion dollars in capital expenditure and increases in the NZDF's operating baseline over the next 10 years in the region of $1.2 billion. That is unsustainable” – the Government Defence Statement 2001

A great case of only telling half the truth.

Firstly, separate the selling of the Skyhawk from the overall disbandment of the Air Combat Force.

I partially agree that the A-4 was no longer a modern front line fighter/attack aircraft, but it was effective when compared to regional threats - in the short term. Getting rid of the Skyhawks is/was not the big issue, but it was an easy way out.

Here's what the Whineray review said about the requirement for an Air Combat Force:
The Whineray Review in 1998 concluded that the air combat capability had high policy value in protecting and promoting New Zealand’s local, regional and global security interests. It was considered to be fundamental to demonstrate that New Zealand is serious about its own defence, and to send a clear message about our commitment to broader security.

Labour's own Derek Quigley recommended in 2000 that the F-16 lease agreement be continued (albeit at reduced numbers), a study that was overridden by the Prime Minister.
http://www.executive.govt.nz/f16/review10.htm#recommendations

Here's what the NZ Ministry of Defence had to say in conclusion in 2001:
Retaining a reduced air combat capability would balance the strategic and foreign policy risks of eliminating the capability with the financial risks of maintaining air combat as part of the NZDF structure.

Elimination of the air combat force entirely carries strategic, foreign policy and military operational risks.

NZDP

13th Sep 2005, 00:13

gsf:

NZDP: No mention of ASTI in Stuff that I could see, all news outlets are reporting what the government has said, namely that all the aircraft have been sold to Tactical Air Services.

Part of ATSI

http://www.atsifightertraining.com/tactical.html

scran

13th Sep 2005, 01:01

I heard the Macchi's were going to Malaysia. Confirm?

Where are the Skyhawks off to?

pakeha-boy

13th Sep 2005, 03:57

MOR-on.....personally I really dont care for your ****/....woomera has warned me about calling people ****ty names so I will respect his wishes out of respect for the position he is in.....personally ...Id like to kick your arse as you have proven on several occasions that you are just a political agitator bent on making worthless confrontations which amount to nothing.....what you need to do is PM me/.....I will give you my address and we can meet to discuss this on a "personal level"...:mad: ......as previously stated ..The NZ govt has on numerous occasions forgotten they are part of the whole world..we have obligations and we need to meet those expectations////MOR.... run for parliment....ie\
M...minister
O....of
R...REDNECKS
b*** m**........pukuiri

Ex Douglas Driver

13th Sep 2005, 04:17

All the aircraft are going to the same company, Tactical Air Services Inc in the USA.

ATSI lists tactical air services as one of their capabilities, but I'm not necessarily sure that it's them that have bought the aircraft. I am aware of their prominent interest over the last 3 years and they may have started an off-shoot company as Tactical Air Services Inc are in a partnership with Alenia.

Pakeha-boy, I think you'd be well advised to heed Womera's previous warning. Offering violence in any form cannot be tolerated, particularly from behind a pseudenom. Your post about this being the Nat's fault is confusing, perhaps you'd like to clarify your comments?

National, while in office, certainly underfunded defence in NZ for years but had started to make amends with a program of capital replacement. Labour, and Helen Clark in particular, ran her own agenda (with some help from factions within the Army), and refused to listen to the advice from her own comittees

MOR

13th Sep 2005, 05:46

pakeha-boy

Sorry, I don't frequent the Porirua Ghetto very often.

Why don't you and the homies come and visit me on the coast. A pity that the only way you can argue is with your fists/knife etc., but there you go.

Anyway, to help plug the holes in your education - left in the fifth form did we...?

NZ became nuclear-free in 1984 under a Labour government, which led to our "withdrawal" from ANZUS. This came about from a refusal to allow a nuclear submarine into our waters in 1972, by the then Labour government. The subsequent National government (1975) dropped all restrictions to nuclear ship visits in 1976. This policy continued until Labour regained power in 1984. IN 1986, our membership of ANZUS ended (under a Labour administration).

So the simple facts are that Labour has pursued a policy of military isolationism and a continual erosion in the size and quality of our armed forces. National has a policy that is opposed to this.

In other words, your reference to National as being the problem is about as true as the stuff that the Iraqi Information Minister used to come out with.

Now if you cannot grasp this simple recitation of the facts of history, you should really refrain from posting as your ignorance is quite telling.

[edited for typos, not sentiment]

ATCO1962

13th Sep 2005, 07:18

Personally, I hope that ATSI is actually a front for a bunch of interested Kiwi airpeople (perhaps based somewhere near Wanaka?) who will buy back all those wonderful noise machines!

And as a Kiwi taxpayer of some 26 years, I was more than happy to see my hard-earned tax dollars spent on Kiwi Red and all those fine exhibitions of low-flying when I had my time at the Cat 2 ATC units around the country.

And, judging by the faces of the kids I observed at the various airshows and those of their parents, I would say I am in a large club of admirers.

Don't get me started about the flow-on benefits of having even older-model fighters on the books.

Helen, you are the weakest link. Goodbye after the election, one hopes!:*

CT7

13th Sep 2005, 07:43

2 Small things really.
The A-4's did fire an unguided Zunni rocket at a fishing trawler many years ago to stop it as it was outrunning our Frigate sent to intercept it. (Is that classed as Operational Action?)

And, we don't have an anti-nuclear policy, it's an anti-American policy. Why?
Because we allow ships from China and Inda (both N Powers) here but not US/UK ships.

MOR

13th Sep 2005, 09:14

The difference is that we know that they are non-nuclear ships with no nuclear weapons, whereas the US refuses to "confirm or deny" the presence or absence of nuclear power or weapons - so the government chooses to assume that one or the other is present.

It isn't strictly anti-American therefore, but I agree with your sentiment.

Ex Douglas Driver

13th Sep 2005, 09:28

The aircraft fired a burst from the cannons in front of the trawler to make it stop. It was carrying Zuni rockets but didn't fire them.
http://www.warbirdsite.com/KinNan.jpg

CT7

14th Sep 2005, 05:10

Do we Really Know? .......
So our Govt. believes totally the Chinese when they say, no, no auntie helen, we have no nukes on board....

And we didn't mean to steal those kiwifruit (or apple) branches and make them better in China....

MOR

14th Sep 2005, 06:10

I absolutely agree with you... but the Chinese etc do at least go through the motions of saying yes or no, whereas the Americans refuse to do so and therefore force the governments hand.

The whole thing is load of nonsense anyway. As far as I'm concerned, the whole nuclear-free policy is piece of luddite stupidity. I spent 16 years living within 10 miles of a nuclear weapons storage facility, and 25 miles from a nuclear power station, in a country where the risks are actually understood, and effectively managed.

"Nuclear -free" will keep us in the 20th century forever.

Ex Douglas Driver

14th Sep 2005, 06:23

From this article it appears that Tactical Air Services is a separate company from ATSI

Air Force past protected

14.09.05

New Zealand's Skyhawk fighter bombers will keep New Zealand colours and some markings when they are shipped to a new life in America.

The Government has sold the 17 Skyhawks and the 17 Aermacchi jet trainers to American company Tactical Air Services which will train fighter pilots for the American Air Force and other American allies.

The Skyhawks will stay in their New Zealand green colour and keep at least their No 75 Squadron and No 2 Squadron markings when their new owners begin contract work with the American Air Force and Navy and other friendly defence forces to train fighter pilots.

The New Zealand Kiwi, roundels and New Zealand numbers will be removed.

"We will preserve the great heritage of the RNZAF. We will do that, absolutely," Tactical Air Services chairman and former US Navy fighter pilot Hoss Pearson said yesterday.

"Whatever we are allowed to do to preserve the New Zealand heritage," he said.

The deal was worth $155 million, believed to be made up of about $50m for the Skyhawks and the balance for the Aermacchis.

It will take about $12m for the Skyhawks to be regenerated into flying condition by Safe Air in Blenheim.

With other costs deducted, including the cost of dumping the air combat wing, moving the Australian-based squadron back to New Zealand, maintaining the mothballed jets and marketing them internationally, the Government will get about $120m.

The Aermacchis need little or no work but Safe Air engineers were expected to start on the Skyhawks within a week or so and the first is likely to be shipped out of New Zealand before Christmas.

Mr Pearson said the aircraft were in "beautiful shape".

"The Macchis are really like new and maybe less than 10 per cent of their life has been used. It is the trainer of choice."

The Italian-built Aermacchis were bought by the Government between 1991 and 1993 and with a top speed of 960km/h, are considered an ideal training jet for fighter pilots.

"These aeroplanes were designed for 12,000 hours and only 1500 hours have been used. They are just great aeroplanes," Mr Pearson said from the United States.

Mr Pearson was involved with another American Company, Advanced Training Systems International, which almost bought the New Zealand Skyhawks in 2003.

The deal went sour with internal company woes, but Mr Pearson said then the Skyhawks had been well maintained and were in excellent condition.

The sale is conditional on the US State Department permitting the importation of the aircraft into the US but Defence Minister Mark Burton said on Monday that was not expected to be a problem.

- NZPA

ZK-NSJ

14th Sep 2005, 09:42

"its the trainer of choice", that explains why nz were the only country that ordered that particular model when everyone else was ordering hawks

Gnadenburg

14th Sep 2005, 10:15

Another chapter has finally come to an end in that New Zealand epic- bludging!

Both sides of the political fence are content without a token committment to an air combat capability. Money saved has not been reinvested into the NZ defence force which faces block obsolesence of equipment and a limited ability to contribute to anything but peacekeeping.

A New Zealand fighter squadron, even with older A4's, was a solid fundamental for regional security, when operated alongside the RAAF. An F16 squadron would have undisputably maintained regional superiority of the RAAF/RNZAF in the decade ahead as Australia replaces it's own fighter & bomber squadrons.

If New Zealanders can not see the merit of an air combat wing in future regional operations, then the logic of airpower in the war on terror has been lost on them aswell. A4's, with the Kiwi upgrade, are superb counter-insurgency platforms. Modern F16's with RNZAF professionalism even better. An investment in air to ground missiles for the P3's to work with NZ SAS in offensive counter-terrorist operations another option.

Yet the Kiwis again choose to bludge.

In Mindanao Island in the Southern Phillipines, home grown terrorist groups have linked up and are providing a training ground for regional jihadists such as Jehmiah Islamiah ( Bali bombings ). Rogue religious money from the Gulf state and Saudi Arabia is slowly making it's way to the terrorist coffers. Al Queda is involved but no doubt a little frustrated at how money disappears in the Phillipines without result.

In recent offensives against Islamic terrorists, the Phillipine air force has been using turbo-prop aircraft with light weight striking power- rockets & machine guns not much evolved from WW2 Mustangs. The Phillipines wanted but could not afford the RNZAF Skyhawks which would have been far more effective.

A gift of the A4's to the Phillipines, with leftover munitions and Kiwi instructor pilots or mercenaries, would have been a very real contribution to the war on terror- though probably politically hard to stomach.

But alas, the New Zealanders again chose their familar path of least resistance- to bludge!

Tactical Air Services?

In the eighties, it was strange it did not dawn on more people, that the US State Department approved the sale of 36 ex-USAF F4 Phantoms to impoverished and technically under developed Bolivia. The F4's never made it to Bolivia- American patriots Olli North had them broken up and sold to Iran. The rest is history with profits supplying the Contra Gate scandal in Cental America.

Perhaps Tactical Air Services is another front for American patriots such as Oliver North. It seems odd and unlikely that the US services would use the former RNZAF to provide for it's sausage machine output of fighter pilots! More specialist training granted.

It would be politically embarrassing for Ms Helen Clarke if the former RNZAF ends up fighting a dirty, controversial little war somewhere around the world. Maybe New Zealand Skyhawks will end up fighting in the Southern Phillipines under the cover of a private corporation!

MOR

14th Sep 2005, 10:48

Lots of holes in that argument.

First of all, the loss of the strike wing can be laid squarely at the door of the Labour Government. The problem now is that, even if National get in, the cost of standing up the strike wing again is likely to utterly prohibitive. It's a bit like trying to get Concorde flying again - theoretically possible, but way too expensive.

Secondly, NZ has no need for a counter-insurgency capability. Such a capability against terrorists is not only a complete waste of time - how would it have helped in any of the attacks to date - but logistically not feasible if the camps are in the Phillipines. That is a matter for the Phillipines and their allies.

Calling NZ a bludger is a bit rich coming from Oz.

Of course I would be the first to agree that the dismantling of the strike wing was a mistake of epic proportions. I am sure we will end up regretting it.

Wizofoz

14th Sep 2005, 10:49

Well, they have an impressive web-site.

They claim to be already involved in aggressor training and lead-in training for foreign airforces. Does anyone have any inside info confirming this?

Gnadenburg

14th Sep 2005, 11:14

Wiz

The mentioning of keeping the former livery of the RNZAF a reasonable hint that the A4's will be target practice for frontline American pilots in training.

MOR

Why don't we address all the "holes" then?

Where there is a will there is away. With Australian help and and NZ political committment your air combat wing could be reinstated- in whatever guise. Stand alone capability, joint ANZAC squadron, RAAF does your training etc- Orions with stand off missiles an air combat capability too.

There is no political or national will for a viable NZ Defence Force- keep bludging!

Your second paragraph perplexing. Firstly, your air combat wing was flexible with the professionalism of the RNZAF. Counter-insurgency was a role that could be delivered along with a number of other roles should unforseen situations arise.

Counter-insugrency is a role your SAS is undertaking in Afganistan- with "borrowed" air support if needed. In the war on terror where small units do a lot of the fighting without much ground support, a counter-insurgency/ close air support role from air forces has become the most prominent mission of the present period.

You were very, very New Zealand in your mention that the buildup of Al Queda and friends in the southern Phillipines the responsibility of the Phillipines and it's "allies" only - another isolationist Kiwi not to think a terrorist training ground in the Phillipines a regional or national threat ( albeit to expats/tourists in New Zealand's case ).

Finally, Australians have every right to call New Zealanders bludgers- and not just on defence matters. ;)

MOR

14th Sep 2005, 11:45

Unless the Australian help came in the form of billions of dollars, there would be no political commitment - because it would be political suicide. "Sorry Mrs Jones, you can't have your hip replacement because we need to save for some new planes that we will never use in anger..."

There IS political and national will for a Defence Force (which is what we have), but NOT a strike force... unless of course you are saying that offence is the best form of defence.

Counter insurgency only works if you have the reach to implement it. We don't. The lesson of the Falklands was that a small force a long way from home is extremely vulnerable.

Our involvement in Afghanistan is essentially in intelligence, not combat.

As far as the Phillipines goes, they are not "regional" to us. Fiji, maybe. Phillipines, not so much. They are certainly not a threat in any direct sense. I would be far more concerned with other training grounds a bit closer to home, for example all those countries to the north of Oz.

One of the benefits of being a small island nation is that it is relatively easy to spot likely terror suspects... but only if you pay close attention to your borders, which is what we are currently doing with the small force left to us. Australia never has, and never will, assist in that task. Mostly they are too busy whining about McDonalds using NZ spuds for their fries.

I think you thoroughly misunderstand the war on terror, the level of risk that various countries face, and the areas of responsibility each nation must address. The Phillipines is not an issue for us (although it will be for you).

That doesn't mean I don't think we should have a strike force, or that we should use it. We should. However, the damage is done now.

And we are bludgers in the same way that you are convicts. More fool you for taking all our rejects... ;)

ATCO1962

14th Sep 2005, 15:18

Let's talk about underarm bowling, shall we?????:yuk: :mad: :O :ok:

Incoming!!!!

aintsaying

14th Sep 2005, 17:20

The current labour Government shut down the RNZAF fighter wing.
Helen Clark (with a wisper in her ear) cancelled the F16's.
The new National government will have a clean slate to start from to purchase a new fighter wing.
What the new fighter wing will be is anyones guess.

Dave Martin

14th Sep 2005, 17:30

Gnadenburg

A gift of the A4's to the Phillipines, with leftover munitions and Kiwi instructor pilots or mercenaries, would have been a very real contribution to the war on terror- though probably politically hard to stomach.

Were you actually serious about this?

Donate our ex-military hardware to a state that could quite forseeably blur the line between terrorist insurgency and popular uprising/seperatist movement? Been there before with western involvement in Indonesia.

Nothing would play more in to the hands of AQ and make New Zealand more at risk than such an offer, for absolutely minimal gain for either NZ or the Philippines.

Line of least resistance, yes. hardly a bludge, and sound, sensible policy.

MarkD

14th Sep 2005, 17:39

If New Zealanders can not see the merit of an air combat wing in future regional operations, then the logic of airpower in the war on terror has been lost on them aswell

Could it be that "the logic of the war on terror has been lost on NZers"?

They wouldn't be the only ones...

Lodown

14th Sep 2005, 20:49

And if you think terrorists play dirty, get to know a politician!

mattyj

14th Sep 2005, 21:25

I reckon the Incoming Govt..whatever form they take should purchase a dozen of those two seat hawk trainers that Aus is building under licence (I think) They have some combat capability and will keep a core of personnel ready in case we need to re-equip later..
..since they are trainers they should be reasonably priced??!!

..plus, 'cause we are mates with Aus and they want us to carry our weight and we let them win at sports etc they will probably give us a good cash deal, with extended warranty..aye cobbers?

Lodown

14th Sep 2005, 22:42

We'll trade you for a couple of All Blacks.

mattyj

14th Sep 2005, 23:16

You can have Brad Thorne for free cause were mates..

..and how about Steve Devine for no extra charge
Heh heh

Fris B. Fairing

15th Sep 2005, 00:17

"We will preserve the great heritage of the RNZAF. We will do that, absolutely," Tactical Air Services chairman and former US Navy fighter pilot Hoss Pearson said yesterday. "Whatever we are allowed to do to preserve the New Zealand heritage," he said.

Sounds like a typical government ploy to justify not giving the aeroplanes to museums. If they want to get serious about heritage preservation they might have extracted from Tactical Air Services a commitment to see the aeroplanes preserved after TAS have finished with them.

Lodown

15th Sep 2005, 03:16

This thread is becoming a commedian's dream. So much fertile material...
"We will preserve the great heritage of the RNZAF. We will do that, absolutely," Tactical Air Services chairman and former US Navy fighter pilot Hoss Pearson said yesterday. "Whatever we are allowed to do to preserve the New Zealand heritage," he said.
Without being nasty, any suggestions to help Mr Bonanza???

gsf

15th Sep 2005, 03:45

Gnadenburg: You are obviously that very rare bird; someone who always agrees with everything their government does regardless of which party is in power.

wessex19

15th Sep 2005, 05:10

I find it Ironic how patriotic the Kiwi's are yet they are the first people in the world to work for another nation without the blinking of an eyelid. Its got to the point where more Kiwi's serve the Australian Defence Force than whats left across the "dietch"!! Now I am not anti-NZ ( I have alot of great Kiwi mates), but mate they have a chip on there shoulders about Australia. Talk about biting the hand that feeds them!!!!!!!

ZK-NSJ

15th Sep 2005, 05:16

now i dont agree with what clark did, howwever i will quote the great oxford union speach given by the late david lange,

"we are actually told that new zealanders cannot decide for themselves how to defend new zealand, but are obliged to adopt the methods which others use to defend themselves"

and (although it makes reference to nuclear weapons, it would also apply to most areas of defence)

" to compel an ally to accept nuclear weapons against the wishes of that ally is to take the moral position of totalitarianism which allows for no self determination and which is exactly the evil that we are suposed to be fighting against"

now david lange also made the point that for nz to accept those weapons would only proliferate the weapons race in this area, we are not puppets of the usa like australia are, we do not have terroism warnings affecting us, we maintain a small but effective defence force , helping those who cannot help themselves, now i would love to see fighter jets once again in nz colours i dont think anyone else from any other country should be in position to comment on us

MOR

15th Sep 2005, 06:29

You could also make the case that the proliferation of precise standoff weapons makes the old Skyhawks redundant.

When the Americans attack, they lead with stealth technology and cruise missiles, rightly concluding that it makes more sense to attack with weapons against which there is little defense. Not sure that applies to a Skyhawk.

Capt W E Johns

15th Sep 2005, 06:54

What about the training so vital to those members of the NZDF who deploy to hostile areas? How many of our SAS boys actually get to practice FACing? And our Navy is reduced to asking civilian companies to fly surface strike missions - one aeroplane at a time. How are the army going to practice using Rapier?

All these things, quite apart from the massive improvements in pilot training, can be achieved using a relatively inexpensive fleet of modern light jet trainers... of the sort that just got sold for no apparent reason other than blind ideology.

CT7

15th Sep 2005, 07:08

The SAS got flown at VERY short notice to all parts of the friendly world to get FAC trained prior to this bunfight. It IS costing big $$ to train not just the SAS but front line troops on FAC.

We aren't getting Rapier either. Some other sort of missile.

The SAS in 'stan are "Tier 1" so more combat than Intel actually.

Our Orions are slowly being pushed away from allied use as they can't find Subs. And to quote the current def minister "They wern't designed to hunt submarines"!! I ask ya!

Gnadenburg

15th Sep 2005, 09:11

Dave Martin

I fail to see the difference between selling your A4's to the Phillipinos or a military assistance programme where the A4's are presented at a token fee- sort of what we did with ex-RAN A4's in the 80's so you could maintain a semblance of an air force.

If the A4's were sold to the Phillipines, they would have been involved in offensive operations against Islamic militants in Mindanao. But that would have been OK because you made money out of the deal?

I know it's convenient to be isolationist, but Al Qaeda is no doubt aware that NZ forces were involved in the Crusader operation in Timor and New Zealand SAS soldiers are operating under American command, with borrowed airpower, conducting offensive operations in Afganistan.

I would suggest that it will be politically convenient for Al Qaeda to target New Zealand soon after/ if it strikes at Australia. Where/when New Zealand is struck will probably have origins in the Southern Phillipines.

MOR

Aren't your SAS working with RAF Harriers in Afganistan? Your Skyhawks had similar capabilities in the surface attack role.

Blowing open the airspace into Korea or Iran not a role suited for a small air force such as the RNZAF. But providing a competant air strike capability, with F16's say, useful in a myriad of roles such as regional security and possibly distant UN sanctioned operations.

MOR

15th Sep 2005, 09:41

Gnadenburg

You really are living on a different planet to the rest of us, aren't you?

If the A4's were sold to the Phillipines, they would have been involved in offensive operations against Islamic militants in Mindanao. But that would have been OK because you made money out of the deal?

How would you know what they would be used for? And, more to the point, how do you know that the somewhat flaky Philippine government wouldn't do what Saddam did to the US?

Al Qaeda is no doubt aware that NZ forces were involved in the Crusader operation in Timor

Yes, nice of us to help you out, wasn't it... but, so what? Al Qaeda have only one aim, to inflict maximum damage on the US and it's allies. They have limited resources and a strike in NZ would be a waste of them. They would far rather hit juicy US or Euro targets. Even if they were to target us (and I'd be more worried about the Maori party getting a seat in Parliament), they still have to get into the country undetected... which is relatively hard in NZ when using the normal methods.

Where/when New Zealand is struck will probably have origins in the Southern Phillipines.

What do you base that on? It is far more likely that any strike would originate in the previously mentioned countries north of Oz.

Your Skyhawks had similar capabilities in the surface attack role.

Yeah, Skyhawks hover really well...

Dave Martin

15th Sep 2005, 09:49

Gnadenburg,

Hate to say it, but I think you could probably trust your NZ neighbours (lacking in any resistance or insurgency) to use A4s a little more ethically than the Philippines. That to me makes a world of difference.

While they may well be involved in operations against militants, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of mission creep likely to evolve over the years. While Indo and Phil are different kettles of fish, they share a volitility and potential for NZ supplied hardware to end up employed for not-so-pleasant purposes. Not something NZ can afford to get involved with.

As for isolationism: Al Quaida and the present rise in Islamicism could have been contained many decades ago with a less self-centred approach to foreign policy. It's not an issue of adopting greater military partnerships with Australia, which in turn ties us to the US. There is a whole spectrum if Islamicist thought; while OBL might condemn us crusaders for invading Timor, the majority of "pissed off Islam" is much more focussed on the actions of the US, UK, Aus and Italy's current involvement in Iraq.

Far from being isolationist, a few steps back from Australia right now is a rather unsubtle way of saying we don't approve of what you or your dearest American ally is currently doing. The end result is we are safer, a clear signal is sent of dissent with US foreign policy and our standing is improved.

This isn't to say that NZ is no longer involved. We play our part in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and to a small extent Iraq. OBL can certainly label us an enemy, but we don't foolishly incur the wrath of those that otherwise have no beef with us.

MOR

15th Sep 2005, 10:29

The sad thing about OBL and Al Qaeda is that everybody, even other Muslims, are the enemy. I see they declared war on the Shi'ites in Iraq today... their own people, ethnically. The simple fact is that fundamentalist Islam hates everybody, and wants to kill everybody, but themselves.

Please note the qualifier "fundamentalist" above.

ganDerMan

15th Sep 2005, 12:13

Guess it all comes back to rugby...in the end

MOR

15th Sep 2005, 12:59

Yep that is the kind of fundamentalism I can relate to! ;)

Gnadenburg

15th Sep 2005, 14:46

Dave Martin

Your argument is the frustrating thing about contemporary New Zealanders- your as fickle and as grandstanding as the French!

You were happy to sell the A4's to the Phillipines in exchange for F16's, but now, it would be morally unethical?

I concur Iraq is disasterous policy. However, I have taken issue with the fact that New Zealanders continue to run down their defence fundamentals in a region that is a powder keg for terrorism.

The southern Phillipines is becoming significant- Jehmaih Islamiah and Abu Sayyaf are being tied up by Al Qaeda. It is not just tribal insurgency, but a breeding ground for sophisticated Islamic terrorism. Indonesian,Thai & Malaysian nationals are being trained in the Phillipines before filtering back to their respective battlegrounds.

I would be very surprised not to see some sort of eventual, counter-insurgency involvement of NZ & Australian forces in the Phillipines - in whatever form.

MOR

How frightfully rude; but I must confirm I'm not from Planet New Zealand!

First quote/ counter-quote: it is fair to asume ex-Kiwi A4's would have been involved in recent interdiction operations against Muslim fighters in Mindanao if the F16 deal had gone through. Why? Because the Phillipine AF has nothing suitably operational other than turbo-props! The statement reference your A4's being a threat to the US absurd militarily and hypocritical considering you were going to sell them to th Phillpots anyway!

Second quote/ counter-quote: I would suggest your head in the sand or up your a$$ naivety makes you frightfully more vulnerable! Al Qaeda makes continous mention of East Timor. New Zealanders are in Afganistan. Al Qaeda will finance attacks on NZ when politically suitable.

Third quote/ counter-quote: Indonesian terrorist, Phillipino trained! Read a newspaper.

Fourth quote/ counter quote- You underestimate the ability of your former air combat wing, to deliver a mission similarily to what your SAS is occassionally directing in Afganistan. When bombing the Taliban it would be a brave pilot to hover by the way!

The bludging Kiwis deliver little more than a police force defence capability. Kudos to the 700 New Zealanders a week who come to Australia to shirk their bludging title!

Dave Martin

15th Sep 2005, 15:15

You were happy to sell the A4's to the Phillipines in exchange for F16's, but now, it would be morally unethical?

Well, I don't recall ever supporting any sale of ex-NZDF-whatever hardware to other countries. That is quite simply an industry and a money making venture that NZ should not be involved in.

The southern Phillipines is becoming significant- Jehmaih Islamiah and Abu Sayyaf are being tied up by Al Qaeda. It is not just tribal insurgency, but a breeding ground for sophisticated Islamic terrorism.

So, as much as anything else this is a policy problem within the Philippines. Does it not surprise that an isolated, impoverished and marginalised region of this country becomes a haven for Al Qaeda? Mk82's will only expand this issue.

However, I have taken issue with the fact that New Zealanders continue to run down their defence fundamentals in a region that is a powder keg for terrorism.

As I understand the ~$100mil gained from the A4 sale, not to mention the year on years savings, are going to be plugged back at least partially into the NZDF. We might be downgrading our aerial strike capacity to nothing more than P-3 mounted harpoons, but troops, sailors and airmen will be better catered for in other areas.

As often stated, it was simply an asset that could hardly justify itself in any way other than being a training asset. An expense that was put to little operational use while other non-strike assets, over-used, saw had their slice of the cake eaten into by the continued existence of A4 squadrons.

This is not a lose-lose situation.

MOR

15th Sep 2005, 15:18

Gnadenburg

Yeah OK it was a little rude, sorry about that.

The deal to rid ourselves of the A4s and acquire F-16s was brokered by the US. We had no real choice in the end customer, it could have been whoever the US decided it was going to be.

I never said that the A4's could pose a threat to the US, merely noted that the US has a long history of supplying arms to nations that then proceed to turn on them, biting the hand that once fed them.

The threat to NZ from Al Qaeda, in world terms, is very small, as both our government and the available US intel confirms.

Just because one Indonesian terrorist was trained in the Philippines, does not make the Philippines a threat to us. Using that logic, France should be our sworn enemy and we should immediately prepare a deployment to raze their training facilities to the ground. And don't get me started on Somali refugees...

Our strike wing had no combat experience, out-dated equipment and very limited training opportunities once ANZUS stopped. I doubt they would have performed all that well.

The hover capability of the Harrier has numerous advantages when operating in an interdiction or counter-insurgency role - for example it removes the need for a runway. Try landing in a clearing by the road in a Skyhawk and see how you get on.

If you must continue your own rudeness with the term "bludgers", it might be worth recalling the words of one of our great leaders - Rob - who noted that Kiwis heading to Oz raised the IQ of both countries. How right he was.

[edited for typos]

Capt W E Johns

16th Sep 2005, 08:16

Trying to relate the ownership of a strategic deterrent to the so-called "war on terror" is chasing shadows. Clearly there is no link.

Fundamentalists do not strike out against capabilities, they strike against ideologies and belief systems. NZs geography, policies and diplomacy make it pretty much irrelevant to your average suicide bomber.

Try to keep your debate relevant - the strike wing never was and never will be the way to counter an exploding car.

And MOR - please expand on how the Harrier's hover capability makes it a more effective ground attack platform, I could use a good laugh. Oh, and another lesson on Islam wouldn't go astray either please... and tell me exactly what it was that Saddam did to the US... actually, never mind.

MOR

16th Sep 2005, 09:55

Capt W E Johns

please expand on how the Harrier's hover capability makes it a more effective ground attack platform, I could use a good laugh.

The ability to refuel or re-arm without needing a runway (ie without leaving the immediate area) was one of the original design goals of the project. It is even detailed in the promotional films of the time.

Oh, and another lesson on Islam wouldn't go astray either please

What would you like to know?

Maybe we could start with this:

"Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam) take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them' - Surah 4.89, The Noble Quran

and tell me exactly what it was that Saddam did to the US

Invaded Kuwait using US-made weapons and tactics, thus threatening a major source of US oil supplies. Killed as many Americans as they could using the same weapons. Or do you think the US liberated Kuwait because they like sand?

You are elevating ignorance to an art form...

Daedal_oz

16th Sep 2005, 13:13

An Australian, a Kiwi and South African are in a bar one night having a beer.

All of a sudden the South African drinks his beer, throws his glass in the air, pulls out a gun and shoots the glass to pieces.

"In Seth Efrika our glasses are so cheap that we don't need to drink from the same one twice," he says. The Kiwi, obviously impressed by this, drinks his beer, throws his glass into the air, pulls out his gun and shoots the glass to pieces.

"Wull mate, in Niw Zulland we have so much sund to make the glasses that we don't need to drink out the same glass either," he says

The Australian, cool as a Koala, picks up his beer and drinks it, throws his glass in the air, pulls out his gun and shoots the South African and Kiwi.

He turns to the astonished barman and says,"In Austraalia we have so many bloody South Africans and Kiwis that we don't need to drink with the same ones twice."

Gnadenburg

16th Sep 2005, 14:16

Captain WE Johns

Sure, strike wings offer no protection against domestic terrorist bombings, but the point lost on many New Zealanders is they are happy to send their troops of to fight terror using borrowed airpower.

Do New Zealanders have a different reality or are they just bludgers not willing to fund defence fundamentals -they debatably need and operationally use?

MOR

You probably should research a little before labelling other peoples ignorance an art form.

Quickly and irrelevantly, it was French & Russian equipment that was predominantly used by Iraq in it's invasion of Kuwait- and oh what a bum steer they got if you reckon they used American tactics!

As much as the Harrier pilot doesn't want to hover and deliver his weapons, nor does he want to land on a road and camp out at night in Afganistan ( Russians were carved up this way with forward based helicopters ). So, basically, despite aircraft differences, the basic tactical airpower your SAS co-ordinates in Afganistan was ably delivered by the upgraded RNZAF A4's - the F16's would have been a step up.

If the southern Phillipines is the bomb making and terror school of the region, which it is fast becoming, unfortunately somewhere soon NZ interests will be affected. I don't know where you got your information of a just one Indonesian terrorist being trained there, as it is well reported that JI has linked with local terror groups and AQ is in there too.

Dave Martin

16th Sep 2005, 15:06

Gnadenburg,

I like the way our contribution to fighting this "war on terror" is seen as by you as ~our responsibility not being taken far enough~.

Perhaps a better way of looking at it would be: why the hell should we maintain a strike wing, simply to help the US/UK and Australia have an easier time engaging in such activities as an invasion of Iraq? The logical extension of your argument is what use is the Squadron if we aren't pulling our weight by providing a carrier battlegroup to support them?

If you are including Iraq in this war on terror (as Bush/Blair seem to do), then you are talking an invasion we wished to have no part of. Be grateful you have a commitment from NZ in the first place. Many countries are quite justified in wanting no involvement whatsoever in a "war on terror" simply because the concept is a farce.

MOR

16th Sep 2005, 16:51

Gnadenburg

No... sorry, your research is a little lacking. In fact, the US had armed Iraq to make sure they didn't lose the war with Iran. Some examples:

ccording to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

For months now, we've been producing and broadcasting a series of reports setting forth how Iraq, during much of the 1980's and into the '90s, was able acquire sophisticated U.S. technology, intelligence material, ingredients for chemical weapons, indeed, entire weapon-producing plants, with the knowledge, acquiescence and sometimes even the assistance of the U.S. Government. Sometimes, I should add, in violation of U.S. law.

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1991/091391.htm

...and there are many more articles out there.

As far as the use of Harriers go, I have flown with several Harrier pilots over the years and still keep in touch with a couple. I phoned them both and asked them, and they both said that a key part of their mission profile was the ability to re-arm and re-fuel from a forward support base - particularly in the desert where prepared runways are somewhat rare. I asked them how they would rate the A4 against the Harrier for the sort of mission you are talking about. Once they had finished laughing, they pointed out how the Argentinian A4s fared in the Falklands war. I take their point.

pakeha-boy

16th Sep 2005, 17:51

M....minister
O.....of
R.....ranting/raving

GO NZ first:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

MOR

16th Sep 2005, 17:58

Awwww... can't argue with the big boys? Just wanna poke your tongue out? Must be rough only having half an education from the ghetto... still, if you study really hard, you might be able to get that job at Wendy's in the mall...

Go Maori Party... :} :} :}

pakeha-boy

16th Sep 2005, 18:09

MOR-on....what are you a capt on anyway....or should you be in the wannabe section......love to debate all issues....but your continued attacks on people of the "so called" lower class,show what a right little pratt you really are!!!!guess what my index finger is doing right now ....if you tell me your a capt on a c172....I promise never to say a bad word about you again:} :} :} :} :} :} raho

Wizofoz

16th Sep 2005, 18:46

pakeha-boy,

Learn what capital letters are for, learn how to form a logical argument, leave the gutter talk where it belongs and MAYBE people will take you seriously!!

MOR

17th Sep 2005, 00:18

pakeha boy

Oh dear - still haven't figured it out? I'm not attacking the lower classes, just you. You should feel honoured.

As for what I'm a capt on... something you could only dream of.

Nice chatting, but I must go and give my gold bars another polishing... :ok:

Pharknose

17th Sep 2005, 21:34

MOR-on
Polishing your gold bars will certainly make a nice change from your ego. I suggest vaseline to help you squeeze that clearly oversized cranium through the flight deck door of your dream machine.
:yuk:

MOR

18th Sep 2005, 02:02

Another poor sap that doesn't get it... ah well. Can't expect Ozmates to understand irony I suppose, I mean they can barely understand the rules of cricket.

Finished polishing my gold bars, I'll need to get on with gold rings on my jacket...

Gnadenburg

8th Oct 2005, 21:53

Been a lack of Kiwi bashing for a while. With those interests to heart, rehashed this old thread.

Just a recent example of an application of airpower in the war on terror. There is a good chance New Zealanders were involved in this or similar- but they borrowed other peoples gear in typical fashion.

MOR.

This job could have been done by RNZAF A4's or better still, new F16's. Can I add also, that due logisitical and security problems in Afganistan, Harriers - including American examples operated off helicopter carriers in 2001/2002- were never used at remote staging bases.

Diggers in secret Afghanistan clash
By Brendan Nicholson
Defence Correspondent
Canberra
October 6, 2005
Page Tools

An Australian soldier goes on a moonlight patrol in Afghanistan.
Photo: PA

DRAMATIC details have emerged in Britain of Australian involvement in intense combat in Afghanistan, despite the Australian Defence Force's secrecy about operations in which two soldiers have been wounded.

Britain's Daily Telegraph reported yesterday that an Australian special forces patrol, which cornered an estimated 50 al-Qaeda members in central Afghanistan, called in a Royal Air Force Harrier jet for support.

The aircraft obliterated a building with a laser-guided bomb, killing all of the insurgents.

When The Age asked the Australian Defence Force for more information, a spokesman said it was policy not to discuss engagements involving the special forces task group, for operational security reasons.

The Defence Force has previously given sparse details of two incidents in which soldiers from Australia's Special Forces Task Group have suffered minor wounds in Afghanistan.

On Monday evening, the Defence Force said a soldier received a shrapnel wound when a patrol clashed with anti-coalition militia forces at the weekend. He was treated at the scene and evacuated for treatment but he was expected to return to duty after a short recovery period in Afghanistan. The statement gave no further details other than to say that the soldier's next of kin had been informed.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

In late September, an SAS trooper received a minor wound in a clash with insurgents in which an Afghan National Army soldier was killed.

On that occasion about 12 Australians in long-range patrol vehicles were attacked near the Pakistan border by a much larger force of insurgents.

The London report has now revealed details of what appears to be a third incident involving Australians.

The newspaper said two RAF Harrier jets were patrolling over Uruzgan Province in central Afghanistan two weeks ago when the pilots spotted activity outside a cave system.

It said Australian SAS soldiers were sent in to investigate and a large group of insurgents fled. The Telegraph quoted intelligence sources saying it appeared that the insurgents were protecting a senior commander.

An estimated 50 al-Qaeda members eventually took shelter in a building deep in the Hindu Kush where they held off the Australians for several hours.

The newspaper said the insurgents must have thought they were safe as rockets and bombs dropped around them seemingly without much effect.

"Their confidence, however, was misplaced and short-lived," the report said.

The Harriers carried out a low-level rocket attack and then launched a 1000-pound laser-guided bomb into a field nearby.

British airmen told The Telegraph later they wanted to let the insurgents know they meant business and to give them the chance to surrender.

The insurgents did not give up and the aircraft bombed the building. There were no survivors. End Article.

For Dave Martin, and again MOR, who have stated the proliferation of terrorist activities in the Phillipines regionally insignificant.

Those Kiwi A4's would have been handy, as a defence aid assistance programme or gift to the PAF, in their offensive in the Southern Phillipines 18 months ago.

The Philipine bases, where terrorists funded by rogue Arab money learnt bomb making and other skills, were struck by a handful of turbo-prop aircraft with ineffective machine gun & rocket fire. Follow up ground offensives were effective but did suffer needless casualties.

Laser guided weapons marked by Phillipino Rangers would have been more effective. The opening offensive would have been more devastating prior to moving to the next and more difficult phase, where it is more cloak and dagger affairs.

Aussies hunting bombers
By LINCOLN WRIGHT
09oct05

AUSTRALIAN agents and SAS troops have joined the hunt for senior terrorists in the Philippines.

Australian agents are co-operating with Filipino soldiers in the search for Jemaah Islamiah figures, a former ASIO agent told the Sunday Herald Sun.

The two JI figures suspected of being behind the Bali blasts, Dr Azahari Husin and Noordin Top, are believed to have returned to Indonesia from the Philippines to take part in last week\'s attacks.

But Australian agents are searching for another bomb maker, Dulmatin, who remains in the Philippines -- and they will be waiting should Top and Husin return.

The former ASIO agent said capturing Husin and Top had become a priority for the region\'s intelligence chiefs.

"The SAS and ASIS have been on the ground in the Philippines with US Special Forces and local commandos looking for these guys," the source said.

"They are public enemies one and two. They were behind both Bali bombings and the attacks on the Marriott Hotel and our embassy.

"We have people there with the Americans and Filipinos who are hunting Husin and Top. Our guys are serious people. They are not there to be observers."

An Indonesian source said Husin, JI\'s chief bomb maker, was thought to have been in Bali last Saturday when three suicide bombers killed 22 people. The source said yesterday: "Husin likes to be in the vicinity of the bombs to ensure everything goes to plan and to watch his handiwork. He has done that in the past and it\'s highly possible he has done that this time." End Article.

mr hanky

9th Oct 2005, 00:49

Sorry MOR, while there are plenty of examples of the US being naughty and arming Iraq, when you say that Iraq 'invaded Kuwait using US-made weapons and tactics' you are pretty much completely wrong. Understandable, it's a furphy that's been repeated often enough in the past few years.

So, for the record, here's what they had:

Fighters: French & Russian (Mirage F-1, Mig 21/23/25/27/29)
Bombers: Russian (Su-24 - not that they were much help,
seeing as they nicked off to Iran)
Tanks: Russian (T-72 etc)
SAMs: Russian (SA2,3,6,7 etc), French (Roland/Crotale), American (I think from memory they had a couple of Hawk batteries, but a pretty minor contribution in the big scheme of things)
Surface-surface missiles: Russian (ever heard of a SCUD?)
Small arms: Russian (Kalashnikov etc)
AAA: Russian (ZSUs various)

I'm sure I've left out plenty of stuff (not much of it American), but the overall picture stays the same. This was basically not an American-equipped war machine, nor did it fight like one. So be a good chap, admit you're wrong and apologise to Gnadenburg.
:D

Daedal_oz

9th Oct 2005, 00:51

It said Australian SAS soldiers were sent in to investigate and a large group of insurgents fled.
Britain's Daily Telegraph reported yesterday that an Australian special forces patrol, which cornered an estimated 50 al-Qaeda members in central Afghanistan, called in a Royal Air Force Harrier jet for support.
An estimated 50 al-Qaeda members eventually took shelter in a building deep in the Hindu Kush where they held off the Australians for several hours.
On that occasion about 12 Australians in long-range patrol vehicles were attacked near the Pakistan border...
12 against 50...good odds I'd say. You can just imagine the patrol commander: "Come out and surrender! We've got you surrounded! If you don't, we are going to call in the Skyhawks!"

Mind you, I'm not sure why airpower was needed in any event. As General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett once said:
I've never been too sure about you trenchy type fellows. I've always felt that there was a little too much of the nappy hair-wearing, I'd rather have a cup of tea than charge stark naked at Gerry about you.http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/blackadder/epguide/images/four_goodbye.jpg

Gnadenburg

9th Oct 2005, 09:55

Mr Hanky

I find MOR troubling. He will return and take you off on a side track of the issue, cirlcling irrelevance with the spin skills of a left wing New Zealand politician.

Iran-Iraq irrelevant to the debate but he certainly forgot the single biggest killer of US troops in the Gulf was a Russian made Scud incident, secondly the attack on the USS Stark with French equipment and even today, Russian made RPG's inflicting heavy casualties along with improvised explosive devices made often from Eastern Bloc land mines. MOR forgot to mention the Americans clandestinely supplied Iran with arms ( predominantly spare parts for their American equiped air force ) through Iran-Contra deals with the Oliver North.

Quote MOR- " As far as the use of Harriers go, I have flown with several Harrier pilots over the years and still keep in touch with a couple. I phoned them both and asked them, and they both said that a key part of their mission profile was the ability to re-arm and re-fuel from a forward support base - particularly in the desert where prepared runways are somewhat rare. I asked them how they would rate the A4 against the Harrier for the sort of mission you are talking about. Once they had finished laughing, they pointed out how the Argentinian A4s fared in the Falklands war. I take their point ".

MOR you and Harrier Mate have missed the point. Today's mission in the war on terror, consistantly involves special forces co-ordinating airstikes, where an aircraft delivers a weapon from the flight levels. In the mission above, RAF Harriers took off from Kandahar and delivered a guided weapon, probably marked by Australian SAS. An RNZAF A4 could have done the same job. I am not arguing the Harrier not generations ahead. However, that your former strike force was mission capable right up to the end of it's service life a moot point. By now, F16's should have replaced what was still a useful aircraft.

It is unfair to compare the Skyhawk's performance in the Falklands War to the debate as to whether RNZAF A4's were combat effective up until their retirement. Firstly, unlike upgraded RNZAF A4's with some stand off capability, operating within a coalition support package in a basic war on terror scenario or even a more demanding regional skirmish. The Argentinian A4's found themselves in a total war situation against the Royal Navy. Limitations included- unevolved A4's with elemental avionics/weapons suites, no defensive air to air missiles, bombs of WW2 era and design unsuitable for low altitude delivery and with expired shelve lives, limited air refuelling, dubious fighter escort and rudimentary counter measures. They faced a fighter threat, a ground based SAM threat aswell as ship based missiles and guided anti-aircraft artillery - submarines too if you consider carrier borne A4 operations were effectively deterred by RN hunter-killer operations. There is a good chance your Harrier Mate would have been shot down too!

Your A4's were effective up until their theoretical replacement by F16's. The F16's would have been superb for regional security, especially when bolted on to RAAF operations with tanker and early warning support. Couple the RNZAF F16's with your SAS and a myriad of other scenarios covered aswell.

The fighter wing is gone, but your air force structure is ridiculously still in place- considering, like the baulk of your defence force, it delivers little more capability than a Police Air Wing ( the RNZAF Band excellent I must add ). Millions saved by phasing out the fighters now millions wasted keeping your Air Force in place.

What a trashy left wing legacy!

Point0Five

9th Oct 2005, 10:37

Well said Gnadenburg:ok:

That Prime Minister of theirs, can't remember his name, has a lot to answer for!

NoseGear

9th Oct 2005, 13:02

Gnadenburg, as has been pointed out, ad nauseum, most if not all Kiwis are completely fecked off at the Labour government for not upgrading the stike arm, and of course disbanding it. We all feel that we are not doing our bit, and it certainly ticks me off, and no, I would not, and have never, voted labour. Point05 is quite right, and its name is Helen.....

You say "An RNZAF A4 could have done the same job" with respect to the Aussie SAS ground operations being supported by the RAF. So then, why is it ok for the RAF to provide the Aussie SAS with ground support, but you bag the Kiwis when the yanks or RAF do the same for us? Where is your own RAAF then? Are they operating there? When a call comes for ground attack operations, it is a joint command decision, whatever assets are available at the time are sent, they don't hold off until the RAAF can come and bomb the ragheads just cause some grunt from Oz is holding the laser.

Point0Five

9th Oct 2005, 13:05

Good point, well made. Yet again, we come back to the intent of our respective governments.

I will give the Kiwis credit for sorting out their navy though. If only all of our interests were constrained to the South Pacific ........... :sad:

Gnadenburg

11th Oct 2005, 01:19

NoseGear

It is hard enough getting someone to admit they're a New Zealander, let alone the fact they voted Labor. It was doubtful, victory for the conservative government would have resulted in a reinstatement of the strike wing- so I would say your statement that most, if not all Kiwi's fecked off with the labor government should be more along the lines that, due isolation, Kiwi's have learnt that they can bludge in defence too.

What makes it all worse is the parochialism of the New Zealander. For example, even though your defence forces are so appallingly run down, 90% of their roles could be fullfilled by contracted civil defence services, you keep in place an air force with expensive, unneccessary structures for the capability it delivers.

But to disband your air force, create a cheaper and as effective civilian flying wing, would be a total admission by the New Zealnder that they are bludgers. As it stands, the fascade that is the New Zealand Defence Force, has you all pretending you have a role to play in regional issues.

On your last contention, RAAF fighters could slot in and replace RAF Harriers at deployments end in a close air support role- and it may happen. Granted, your reference to joint operations, which returns us to the fact that the only meaningful combat capability the New Zealanders have is a handful of SAS- who arrive in thearte ineffective until they can beg, borrow or steal suitable equipment their bludging public won't provide them with!

CT7

11th Oct 2005, 03:24

Gnadburger

Your last comment was so far off the mark, it's outta the solar system!
It is the NZSAS that have Tier 1 recognition with the yanks, not your Oz lot which are Tier 2!!
The "acquiring" of required kit is usually left to the standard forces. (And unfortunately if you mention the first Afg. deployment was a bit embarrasing for the RNZAF)
It would however be nice if the Govt. would recognise that effort and inform the public of what an outstanding job they are doing fighting terrorism, than what the Lab. Govt would rather do and close the whole shop down.

NoseGear

11th Oct 2005, 06:07

Gnadenburg, you've obviously got an axe to grind about so called bludging kiwis and will dish up any old tripe to take a shot at us. But let me tell you this mate, us "bludgers" would be the first to cue up to help you out if anyone tried to give Aussie the slipper. By the way, I am proud to be a kiwi and would never vote labour.

Your own arguments contradict themselves. How can you expect anyone to believe that "its hard to get anyone to admit to being a NZer" and then in the next paragraph call us all so parochial. Well, which is it? You lambast us for having an "expensive and badly structured" airforce that should be contracted out to Civil Defense, but then say if we did that, we'd be bludgers, just not hiding it anymore. Can't win with you can we? I have no doubt that if we took your advice, your howls of "Bludgers" would be heard across the Tasman.

Finally, if your defence forces are so involed in the war against terror, why then is the RAAF sitting at home? Both our respective countries have special forces on the ground, and NZ has sent engineering teams to Afghanistan and the Gulf. Both countries have sent Air transport and Naval equipment to the Gulf and Afganistan. Both countries are contributing. Might want to check your facts again, mate, lest someone call you a bludger.

Nosey

MOR

11th Oct 2005, 07:39

At first I had to smile when I saw that this one had been resurrected. I was even going to write a reasoned response - in fact I had completed it - but it is obvious that Gnadenburg , as others have noted, is just on a Kiwi-kicking spree. He is under the misguided impression that NZ share Australias concerns when it comes to defence.

Frankly, I would prefer to have nothing to do with Australia on defence matters. It is bad enough that our new (Australian-built) naval ships are going to be of dubious quality and suitability, based on old and inferior designs. How we got suckered into that one is beyond me (another Labour boondoggle).

Gnadenburg, your perspective on defence matters is, to be charitable, unique (and if not being charitable, "bizarre" or "ridiculous"). All you want to do is label Kiwis "bludgers". Fine, I'll label Aussies "convicts" and "underarm bowlers" and we'll leave it at that, shall we? Because your arguments are so facile as to be not worthy of further comment.

Dave Martin

11th Oct 2005, 08:58

MOR,

As the lone Labour voter (and proud of it), I have to agree with you. :D

Gnadenburg

12th Oct 2005, 01:46

CT7

Anecdotally, I was aware NZ SAS hastily borrowed equipment in Afganistan when they arrived. The rumour they performed logistical tasks for German soldiers ( digging latrines ) until they had suitable equipment probably a Furphy. However, can I ask, didn't they borrrow desert patrol vehicles etc of the Americans?

Granted, even socialist Helen has realised, what a superb capability your SAS is, with little relative expense, consequent funding and upgrading has been in place.

Must be the first time a NZ unit has been tier one. Perhaps, it's the independance of operation and nature of their tasks that our SAS is tier 2 in Afganistan. In another thearte, where they had a task and responsibility of keeping Israel out of the war, I find it hard to imagine their resource access not primary.

Nosegear

Promises, promises! What are you going to send in with your generous offer to assist Australia? Despite being isolationist, don't you see a regional skirmish in Asia, a responsibility of New Zealands and not just lending assistance to someone giving Oz the slipper so to speak? Shall we protect your trade routes?

Obviously the minor contingency of piracy in the Malacca a concern, you've offered an Orion, but a more serious skirmish in the region that would close those straits, you could do little in the way of participation.

The RAAF and about 500 other jets are home right now, the battle requires token airpower now but as mentioned, and as discussed in governemnt circles, the RAAF could take on a role in Afganistan.

MOR

We have been waiting with bated breath for your return! After slagging off the former capability of the RNZAF, and rebuking a simple analogy to the relevance of airpower in today's war fighting scenarios, you were going to offer rebuttle quoting Harrier Mate that the RNZAF Skyhawks irrelevant because a Harrier can hover and deliver it's bombs more accurately.

Your silence appreciated!

Dave Martin

Well Dave, you are the first I've come accross who admits the folly.

It's a good, each way bet though, by your socialist government, to secretly commit your troops to a very active combat role in Afganistan, but quietly come accross as Doves.

Hopefully, AQ hasn't noticed and any threat to the security of your trade routes, interests etc, that your defence force unable to meet, can be covered by the US.

Smart and creative bludging.

MOR

12th Oct 2005, 05:18

Ah well gnadenburg , seeing as how you asked so nicely...

BTW it would help your cause enormously if you were able to spell and use correct grammar.

More to the point, I never suggested that Harriers had the advantage of delivering weapons from the hover, that isn't a normal weapons delivery method. The advantage that the Harrier has is the ability to operate from unprepared forward air bases.

Anyway... for you and your mate Mr Hanky...

--------------------------------------------------------

Mr Hanky

No, I don't think I will, as you are both wrong.

Unlike you two, I'll give you the links to the information and quote a few selected bits.

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1992/012692.htm

U.S. Secretly Aided Iraq Against Iran Early In War
The New York Times - January 26, 1992

Secret Is Kept At Gates Hearings

During Senate Intelligence Committee hearings last October on Mr. Gates's nomination as C.I.A. chief, neither Mr., Gates nor any of the other C.I.A. witnesses let on that the U.S.-Iraq intelligence-sharing thought to have begun in December 1984 had actually begun more than two years earlier. Nor did any witness reveal that the Reagan Administration had permitted Iraq's allies in the Middle East to ship American-made arms to Baghdad.

...Washington also "looked the other way." As a former American Ambassador in the region put it, as American-made arms began to flow into Baghdad from Iraq's allies in the Middle East, starting in 1982.

...Jordan and Saudi Arabia sent Iraq small arms and mortars, among other weapons, and Kuwait sold the Iraqis thousands of TOW anti-tank missiles. A former C.I.A .official who worked closely with Mr. Casey recalled that "the Kuwaitis sent lots of money and lots of arms to Iraq, and it was all done with our knowledge." He also acknowledged that by 1982 the Jordanian military was routinely diverting American-made Huey helicopters to Iraq.

...The Reagan Administration had secretly changed policy toward Iran shortly after taking office in 1981, allowing the Israelis, bitter foes of Mr. Hussein, to ship American arms worth several billion dollars to Teheran.

...Since last spring, at least two Congressional subcommittees have been investigating American policy toward the arming of Iraq. They are asking why both the Reagan and Bush Administrations continued military support for Iraq even after the war with Iran.

...It was "U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein," he added.

...Even though the stated United States policy toward the Iran-Iraq War remained one of neutrality, and Congress would never have approved such arms transfers, that year the Reagan Administration began secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs, to Iraq. These shipments may very well have violated the Arms Export Control Act.

...The memo read, in part:

Liberalizing export controls on Iraq: We are considering revising present policy to permit virtually all sales of non-munitions list dual use equipment to Iraq... Egyptian tank sales: In the context of recommending ways to improve our relations with Iraq, Egypt has suggested that we provide it additional M-60 tanks beyond those we are now providing under FMS [Foreign Military Sales]. Egypt would use the additional M-60s to replace used Soviet T-63s, which it would sell to Iraq.... EXIM financing: U/S [Under-Secretary of State] Eagleburger has written EXIM director Draper to urge EXIM financing of US exports to and projects in Iraq... Such major EXIM financing could boost Iraq's credit rating, leading to increased commercial financing for Iraq. However, EXIM does not favor involvement in Iraq.

...In February, to induce Iraq to carry out more bombing operations, the Reagan Administration had secretly authorized Saudi Arabia to transfer United States-origin bombs to Iraq and encouraged the Saudis to provide Saddam with British fighter planes as well. Later that month, according to classified reports, Saudi Arabia transferred fifteen hundred MK-84 bombs to Iraq. But, to the dismay of United States officials, Saddam had failed to make full use of the bombs.

...In September, the Defense Department discovered that an Iraqi front company in Cleveland was funneling United States technology to Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, but the Bush Administration allowed the company to continue operations -even after the invasion of Kuwait.

...and so on and so forth...

Gnadenburg

An RNZAF A4 could have done the same job.

A 206 with a hardpoint could have done the same job.

Argentinian A4's found themselves in a total war situation against the Royal Navy.

Oh, please. They found themselves at war with a very small expeditionary force, thousands of miles from home, with very limited maintenance and munitions supplies. The Argies were operating from their home bases.

Harriers - including American examples operated off helicopter carriers in 2001/2002- were never used at remote staging bases.

They still have the capability - the only reason it isn't used is that a) it isn't necessary in that theatre and b) the Americans are being ultra-cautious in Afghanistan.

Those Kiwi A4's would have been handy, as a defence aid assistance programme or gift to the PAF, in their offensive in the Southern Phillipines 18 months ago.

We don't want, need, or desire involvement in the Philippines. The Americans would be the natural allies for that task.

I don't understand why you just can't seem to understand that a) the Phillippines are not local to us, and b) we do not consider activities there to be a significant risk to us. If you lot do, by all means go and sort it out, but leave us out of it.

Plas Teek

12th Oct 2005, 05:37

GB
Not wanting to steal CT 7s thunder, but I think the Kiwi's may have even beaten your chaps into the Desert Shield/Storm.
Possibly as the Kiwis Green Sqn was on exercise in the UK at the time the baloon went up. They were however a bit upset at not being able to come home and gloat to the Black Sqn members first...
So you'll probably find both sides were there fighting it out on the rugby field. Who was tier what, who knows.

As an aside, the bombing speed of a F18 vs an A4 is 10 knots faster....just the F18 gets back to the showers first!

MOR

12th Oct 2005, 07:08

Who was tier what, who knows.

Never mind that, who won the rugby? ;)

Gnadenburg

12th Oct 2005, 09:04

Plas Teek

Sorry, but we were talking about the more recent action, not 1991.

MOR

Stop squirming and trying to change the absurd context of your statements.

You stated that offloading A4's to a foreign power, which you were happy to do as a trade in for F16's when it suited, would risk having that hardware and tactics used against you in the future. To add credence to this preposterous argument, you informed us the Gulf War was an undisputable example. It was politely pointed out that Iraqi equipment and tactics-and especially in the context you have used the A4 example as- was predominantly Russian & French.

We all know American foreign policy was for a status quo in the region- a stalemate as such, or inevitable costly defeat to both protagonists- which had limited American hardware find itself supplying both armies clandestinely.

Stating a 206 with a hardpoint could do the job in Afganistan a fair summary of your logic and arguments to date. More impressive would have been, a statement that arming your Orions with air-ground weapons a meaningful contribution to a defence effort.

Belittling the threat faced by Argentinian A4's makes no sense and you have ignored the repeated explaination that hovering and forward bases, have not been neccessary or suitable for a decade worth of air campaigns, making Harrier aircraft similar to other platforms.

Foreign affairs not your strongpoint as you reference America being the suitable Phillipino ally. The Americans are treading on egg shells there because of obvious historical sensitivites. You have been fortunate not to lose New Zealanders to Phillipino trained bombmakers, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility, that New Zealand will be asked to assist Phillipino police and army in counter-terrorism roles in the future.

I have taken it upon my duty, until Woomera sees fit to moderate, to remind New Zealanders at every opportunity that there bludging is convincing in many areas, none so convincing as defence!

You are a lost nation, since WW2 when you over committed your resources to Europe, and played only a token effort with the war in the Pacific on your doorstep. Britain was ungrateful at your sacrifice, so you leaned toward ANZUS post war, but being the pesky little guys you are, discovered you felt biggest and most important, when you told bigger friends where to go!

Dave Martin

12th Oct 2005, 09:31

Crickey Gnads, your really reaching aren't you?
It's a good, each way bet though, by your socialist government, to secretly commit your troops to a very active combat role in Afganistan, but quietly come accross as Doves.

*Cough* Socialist? Try Social Democratic. To call New Zealand socialist is like calling Oz or the USA facist. You appear to be quite a paranoid individual. Reds under the bed still bothering you?

And, yes it is a very good strategy. We believe (to a point) in Afghanistan....certain other little follys, we, and much of the world that can't be brought, don't support.

Hopefully, AQ hasn't noticed and any threat to the security of your trade routes, interests etc, that your defence force unable to meet, can be covered by the US.

Your really are on a desperate hunt for threats aren't you. And on our side of the fence, agressive posturing by certain other apparently allied nations is every bit as dangerous as Al Quaida.

You stated that offloading A4's to a foreign power, which you were happy to do as a trade in for F16's when it suited, would risk having that hardware and tactics used against you in the future. To add credence to this preposterous argument,

You really have no knowledge of history do you, even with your apparent interest in wars.

Foreign affairs not your strongpoint as you reference America being the suitable Phillipino ally. The Americans are treading on egg shells there because of obvious historical sensitivites.

No, the US seems to be doing a very good job at getting a military presense in the Phillippines, quite against the Philippine constitution. Treading on eggshells? The VFA is for the benefit of the US only.

I have taken it upon my duty, until Woomera sees fit to moderate, to remind New Zealanders at every opportunity that there bludging is convincing in many areas, none so convincing as defence!

I salute you, sir!

since WW2 when you over committed your resources to Europe, and played only a token effort with the war in the Pacific on your doorstep. Britain was ungrateful at your sacrifice, so you leaned toward ANZUS post war, but being the pesky little guys you are, discovered you felt biggest and most important, when you told bigger friends where to go!

True colours and ignorance shining right through there. Please, don't stop. You have become comical!

MOR

12th Oct 2005, 10:38

Gnadenburg

It really is like trying to nail jello to the wall with you, isn't it?

You stated that offloading A4's to a foreign power, which you were happy to do as a trade in for F16's when it suited, would risk having that hardware and tactics used against you in the future. To add credence to this preposterous argument, you informed us the Gulf War was an undisputable example. It was politely pointed out that Iraqi equipment and tactics-and especially in the context you have used the A4 example as- was predominantly Russian & French.

Firstly, under existing treaties it was the US, and not NZ, who effectively decided where the A4s could be sold. It was never our choice. Note the way they stopped the Swiss selling old F-5s to a nation they didn't approve of. All a matter of record.

Secondly, equipment and tactics doesn't only include aircraft and tanks. If you bother to read the stuff I quoted, you will discover that a lot of the assistance the US rendered to Iraq was of more consequence than their joke of an air force, and their tank brigades. The air force never really came out to play, and the tanks were quickly disposed of.

We all know American foreign policy was for a status quo in the region- a stalemate as such, or inevitable costly defeat to both protagonists- which had limited American hardware find itself supplying both armies clandestinely.

No, it wasn't. The Americans favoured the Iraqis as a) they were extremely concerned that Iran may gain control of the area, and b) Saddam was their friend (at the time).

Stating a 206 with a hardpoint could do the job in Afganistan a fair summary of your logic and arguments to date.

Irony not something you understand too well, is it? :rolleyes:

Foreign affairs not your strongpoint as you reference America being the suitable Phillipino ally.

And geopolitics is clearly not yours. Let me help you then. Question: who has the most to gain from a military presence in the Phillippines, the USA or New Zealand? Pretty easy, really. But wait - isn't one of those two countries already militarily active in the Phillippines? Why, yes...

American and Philippine military forces have launched joint exercises which Washington says signal a new phase in the war on international terrorism. The exercises, which will eventually involve 650 US troops, including special forces, are being staged close to the stronghold of the rebel Abu Sayyaf, a group which the US says has links to Osama Bin Laden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1792591.stm

Next...

You have been fortunate not to lose New Zealanders to Phillipino trained bombmakers

Yes, we have been fortunate not to lose any to attacks by rabid West African Swallows as well... talk about a stretch!

You are a lost nation

Well, if we are lost, I don't ever want to be found! I certainly never want our country to degenerate to the levels seen in the West Island...

since WW2 when you over committed your resources to Europe[/QUOTE

Oh no we didn't. We were asked for help, and we gave it. The European theatre was always more important than the Pacific in any case, if you bother to look at the big picture. We did what we were asked to do. Just like the Aussies, really.

[QUOTE]Britain was ungrateful at your sacrifice

Yes, they were so ungrateful that they gave NZ nearly thirty years of unfettered, protected access to UK markets... they must have really hated us...

when you told bigger friends where to go!

I know that in your dark little world, armed forces are the only external indicators of the health of a relationship. Fortunately for us, trade is a much more important indicator, and on that basis we are very good friends indeed!

Surely you can do better...

mr hanky

12th Oct 2005, 11:37

MOR, just to continue, since I enjoy banging my head against a brick wall: a lot of the assistance the US rendered to Iraq was of more consequence than their joke of an air force, and their tank brigades

As far as I can tell (after labouring through about 50 lines of impressive-looking text) your examples, of great consequence, are:

TOW missiles - didn't figure in '91

Huey helicopters - likewise

Howitzers - if there were any left in '91 amidst the vast majority of Russian artillery, they didn't do much

Mk 84 bombs - not used in '91, if they were even still in the inventory (besides which, their rather large joke of an air force had Russian and French ordnance to go with their Russian and French warplanes)

And that's pretty much it. We could ignore your M-60 tanks and British fighters since you imply yourself they were of little consequence, but to continue the head-banging:

M-60s - see howitzers. Vast amounts of Russian armour about the place, not much in the way of M-60s

British fighters - what British fighters exactly?

The nuclear dealings were no doubt very naughty, but I think you'll find they weren't used in the invasion of Kuwait.

Yes, there's ample evidence of dodgy stuff going on - I said as much myself. But nothing you've stated supports the idea that Iraq 'invaded Kuwait using US-made weapons and tactics, thus threatening a major source of US oil supplies. Killed as many Americans as they could using the same weapons' because it is b0ll0cks. You are wrong. Still.

Now you could go and cut & paste some more impressive-looking text which totally fails to support your original contention, thereby continuing to demonstrate that you're wrong, or we could just move on from what is becoming a rather dull side-issue.

MOR

12th Oct 2005, 12:33

Who needs to? It is very simple.

Did the Iraqis use weapons and tactics from the US? They did, you admit so yourself. Precisely what weapons, how many etc is irrelevant as I never got into those specifics. However, what is clear from the (ongoing) investigations is that there is a lot that we don't know, so the real levels of US weapons used by Saddam are still a moot point.

And where did I say that Saddam had British flighters?

If the Iraqis had hurled a single US-made hand grenade, my original statement would still be true.

You can go back to that intimate relationship you seem to have with a brick wall now, it certainly explains some of the stuff you post...

mr hanky

12th Oct 2005, 13:23

Well if we're going to be silly -

Where did I say you said Saddam had British fighters?

'Did the Iraqis use weapons and tactics from the US? They did, you admit so yourself.' No I didn't, actually, not in the context of the first Gulf War. Try exercising some basic comprehension before getting so worked up.

As for your 'single grenade' argument, it merely demonstrates a continuing ability to be pedantic without making a meaningful point.

Ferschrissakes enough already. Boring.:rolleyes:

Raw Data

12th Oct 2005, 15:00

Do we have a learning disability here?

"Where did I say you said Saddam had British fighters? "

We could ignore your M-60 tanks and British fighters since you imply yourself they were of little consequence

1-0 to MOR I think...:p

mr hanky

12th Oct 2005, 22:09

Oh FFS.

From MOR...In February, to induce Iraq to carry out more bombing operations, the Reagan Administration had secretly authorized Saudi Arabia to transfer United States-origin bombs to Iraq and encouraged the Saudis to provide Saddam with British fighter planes as well.

MOR brings them into the discussion. He doesn't specifically say Saddam had them. Nor do I specifically say he does.

Comprende? Talk about learning disabilities

empacher48

13th Oct 2005, 00:24

Am I going to be out of line here by asking have we actually sold our jets yet? Or was that issue cleared up three or four pages ago? :confused:

I may have forgotten with everything else that has been said besides that....

mr hanky

13th Oct 2005, 00:57

Am I going to be out of line here Yes you are! How dare you attempt to divert this thread away from the tedium, irrelevance and nitpicking into which it has descended?:)

Raw Data

13th Oct 2005, 03:03

The tedium, nitpicking and irrelevance being the contribution of the execrable Mr Hanky. get over yourself, your silliness is ruining a wonderful thread... haven't laughed so much in minutes... :p

mr hanky

13th Oct 2005, 04:07

You're long on name-calling, Raw Data, short on logical arguments. 'Execrable' is very good though.
:ok:

Anyway I'm off to work out how MOR's 'examples' in any way prove his contention that Iraq 'invaded Kuwait using US-made weapons and tactics. I might be some time. Thanks for the entertainment though!

NoseGear

13th Oct 2005, 06:25

Gnaden,

Men, thats who would come, like the men before them that have answered the call. To protect bullsh!t scattergun artists like you who sit behind a computer with your sanctimonious attitude, spewing forth crap, desperatly hoping some of it will be accurate and stick. The way you trivialize the Anzac's makes me sick. All you can bang on about is the defence forces, and when I tell you that NZ would front up, you have the stupidity to ask with what. You've obviously read too many Tom Clancey books and think your something of an expert, when it's plainly obvious you know nothing. Many people have tried to get the Labour gov't to change and front up, a court case was even taken against them, but to no avail.

I won't lower or debase myself to respond to any of your further meaningless goadings. Both my Grandfathers served, one didn't come home, quess what he was defending you SOB.

ATCO1962

13th Oct 2005, 06:44

OK, I confess. It's me. I bought all the A4s through a series of shady meetings with dubious intermediaries because I'm a parochial, and apparently, bludging Kiwi. I felt it was my patriotic duty to buy up these treasured remnants of yesteryear and place them back at units all over NZ where they can be used for noise generation, target drone towing, high speed parachute dropping, advanced and highly accurate topdressing depending on the spare parts we've retained, scary police observation platforms that will make any boy racer think again about outracing NZ's finest, especially with a shot across the bow. We can also use them for sky-writing when the All Blacks win or when Labour loses, we can use them for high speed VIP transport, particularly when Helen feels the need to see an inportant All Black game (one side benefit is with the two seat version, we will allow the P-in-C to eject the backseat passenger if their politics don't synchronise with the front seater!!). Actually, the myriad uses defy listing so I'll stop here suffice to say that I've borne the costs entirely on my own but if you PM me, I'll give you an account number where you can send your donations to show your appreciation of my altruism.:O :D ;) :ok:

Raw Data

14th Oct 2005, 03:58

You're long on name-calling, Raw Data, short on logical arguments. 'Execrable' is very good though.

Name-calling is easier, more fun, and more in keeping with the thread, I thought... :p

Glad you liked execrable. Took me hours to find that one. I suppose I could have just used a shorter anglo-saxon term, but where's the fun in that... ;)

Gnadenburg

15th Oct 2005, 01:44

Nosegear

That was quite an outburst. Don't go, it was MOR we were trying to get rid of!

The tone you've set makes it difficult to offer a polite rebuke however, irrelevantly, my direct family line extends three generations of conflict with a death in WW1, a maiming in New Guinea and two lots of permanent disability from Vietnam. It would be romantic if, as you suggest, they served to defend our right to free speech and a tif on pprune.

I would say, it is successive New Zealand voters, who have allowed their defence forces to become impotent in key areas, that has trivialized the ANZAC tradition. Few Australians would doubt, New Zealanders would "answer the call" and honour their current stated government policy of " meeting Australian alliance commitments by maintaining a close defence relationship in pursuit of common security interests". With short lead time into modern conflict, a willingness to provide barely trained but able bodies for conflict, like in WW2, is comical. It is trained professionals that are required, of which, beyond benign peacekeeping operations, your SAS is probably the only asset that is worth the logistical commitment to put into the line of fire.

Tom Clancy, incidentally, would be very imaginitive in coming up with role for NZ in any of his books.

As I've said before, give up your parochialism, disband your air force completely. What a joke, 2500 air force personnel, unneccessary training structures in place, even got yourself an Air Force band, plenty of good messes aswell. All for no combat ability and questionable other capabilities- a ridiculous waste of money!

New Zealanders wont though, any such disbandment a total admission of bludging. Wheras as now, you can pretend and bulldust your allies that you have relevant capability in place.

Capt W E Johns

16th Oct 2005, 04:54

Gnadenburg, you've done some research, but not enough. Look at the capability currently provided by 5 Sqn (let alone that which will be available post-upgrade) and then tell me that NZ will provide "barely trained" personnel. Any knowledge of JMC and Fincastle will prove that, let alone Mirage.

Then look at the service 40 Sqn has given over several deployments and Bullseyes.

You speak from a position of ignorance and bigotry, I suggest you leave the commentary on ability to those who have the facts.

ZK-NSJ

16th Oct 2005, 08:59

speaking of fincastle, wasnt it last year that the aussies couldnt even find there own submarine?

Going Boeing

17th Oct 2005, 08:53

Capt Johns

Fincastle is a canned exercise with rules designed to obtain the desired result in a very short period of time. It encourages tactics that are useless in the real world of Anti Submarine Warfare. I agree that 5 Sqn does still have real capabilities but there is no balance in the structure of the RNZAF and much of Gnads comments are both accurate and valid. :D

Gnadenburg

19th Oct 2005, 02:54

Interesting week in the drifting relationship between Australia and New Zealand. Firstly, the Kokoda Foundation think tank is proposing Australia needs well in excess of the proposed 100 new fighter-bombers for the RAAF. The extra aircraft would cover the void left by gaps in the RNZAF.

Secondly, as The Australian reports today, our involvement in the Phillipines has been cemented.

Despite the isolationist rants from Kiwis on this forum, it was pure good fortune they haven't lost people in terrorist attacks in Indonesia. Nor do they see spawning Islamic terrorist groups in countries in the region as a threat to their interests. Which not only include direct terrorism on their expats and tourists, but threats to trade routes and the economic & political stability of trading partners in southern Asia.

What will it take to get a Kiwi to lift a finger?

Whatever the catalyst it will be too late for them to lend appropriate assistance- watch them call into play ANZAC sentiments; or reassess their relationship with the United States, for anything requiring military projection to stabilise the region.

Diggers to open new terror front
John Kerin
October 19, 2005

AUSTRALIA is opening a third front in the war on terror as the Howard Government prepares to send troops, patrol boats and surveillance aircraft to The Philippines.

Defence Minister Robert Hill said last night he was negotiating a "status of forces" agreement with Manila, which would pave the way for Australia to conduct joint counter-terrorism exercises on Philippine soil.

The US is the only other country with a status of forces agreement in place.

Senator Hill told The Australian the negotiations could lead to the two countries being involved in joint ground-troop operations.

"Although it will take some time to negotiate a status of forces agreement, it would allow Australian forces and Philippines forces to exercise together in The Philippines and help build Manila's capacity to combat terrorism," Senator Hill said.

The Indo-Philippines front follows Australia's decision to send troops to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Special forces will train Filipino troops in long-range reconnaissance methods. Australian military officers are already training the Filipinos in bombsite investigation techniques.

The Philippine constitution does not allow foreign troops to exercise or conduct operations on its soil but the US has a status of forces agreement that allows both training and operations. The US maintains a team of special forces advisers to train Filipino soldiers on Mindanao and nearby islands.

Canberra is keen to step up its counter-terrorism effort with Manila in the wake of the 2002 Bali bombings investigation, which suggested Jemaah Islamiah suicide bombers were trained at Abu Sayyaf terror camps in Mindanao, in the southern Philippines.

Intelligence officials believe Mindanao may have also been used as a training base for the bombers who carried out this months's attacks in Bali, in which four Australians were among the 23 people killed.

A study published this month by US terrorism expert Zachary Abuza exposes close links between Indonesian terror groups, including JI and Laskar Jundullah, and the Philippines-based ASG and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

Abu Sayyaf has been involved in kidnappings, assassinations, extortion attempts, bombings and beheadings. Its hardcore membership is thought to number several hundred.

In an early sign of Australia's commitment, an RAAF AP3-C Orion will be deployed to help the Philippine Air Force conduct surveillance operations against terrorists crossing the Sulu and Celebes seas.

Two Australian patrol boats will also be sent to assist the Philippine Navy next year.

After meeting President Gloria Arroyo, Senator Hill said it was a "big step" for Manila to negotiate such an agreement with Australia.

Manila was expected to negotiate status of forces agreements with other countries in the region, including Singapore and Malaysia, in an attempt to boost counter-terrorism efforts.

"We intend to negotiate and conclude a status of forces agreement with all the members of ASEAN," Philippines Defence Minister Avelino Cruz said, adding that he hoped the accords would be completed "as quickly as possible".

Senator Hill said the agreement could extend to joint operations but the two countries had not discussed raising co-operation to that level at this stage.

Ms Arroyo thanked Australia last night for extending military assistance to her country in the fight against the terrorists in Mindanao.

Her press secretary, Ignacio Bunye, also welcomed the joint Australian-Philippine air and sea patrols.

"We must combine all the tools to fight terror -- global co-operation and grassroots vigilance ... that will facilitate the detection of terrorist cells, and keep them from executing their evil task."

Senator Hill said Australian defence officials would be observers at the next US-Philippines military joint exercise, next year, and could be expected in future to take part in trilateral exercises.

The Philippines has also expressed interest in procuring six-wheel patrol vehicles such as those used by Australian special forces and small boats to help search marshland where there are believed to be terror camps.

The Howard Government doubled counter-terrorism assistance to The Philippines to $10million last year as part of an existing counter-terrorism memorandum of understanding.

The commander of Australia's special forces, Major-General Mike Hindmarsh, was also in Mindanao last week for talks with military chiefs.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute counter-terrorism expert Aldo Borgu said last night the agreement would be a "ramping up of Australia's involvement" with The Philippines.

"Operational roles for the air force and the navy would be one thing, deploying troops on the ground even at the request of Manila would be beyond anything we've conceived so far," Mr Borgu said.

Labor defence spokesman Robert McClelland said it was pleasing to see Senator Hill increasing co-operation in Australia's own region.

"It is important that we do not let a developing quagmire in Iraq distract us while terrorists continue to operate in (Australia's) own backyard," he said.