Kiwi A4s Finally Sold

[Ex Douglas Driver]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3503785&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pics/ACFUBAP_aik0.JPG

Mothballed Skyhawks sold to private American company

24.05.2003
10.30am - By IAN STUART
The air force's fleet of mothballed Skyhawk attack fighter bombers have been sold to a private American company.

Advanced Training Systems International Limited confirmed today it was in the final throes of a deal which will see the 17 New Zealand Skyhawks join its existing fleet of 12 Skyhawks at the Williams Gateway Airport in Mesa, Arizona.

The company refused to discuss how much it was paying for the aircraft.

ATSI is a private company which offers military flight training to the American and other air forces.

The deal could include some New Zealand pilots and engineers although the aircraft would continue to be maintained in New Zealand at Air New Zealand subsidiary, Safe Air in Blenheim which has a long history of Skyhawk maintenance.

ATSI chairman, former US Navy fighter pilot, Larry "Hoss" Pearson, told NZPA today his company was negotiating with the Royal Australian Navy for six of the Skyhawks to return to the Nowra naval base near Sydney and resume training with Australian warships.

Before they were mothballed in December, 2001, the air force's No 2 Squadron had six Skyhawks in Nowra where they were considered ideal aircraft to train with the Australian navy because they were small, fast, manoeuvrable and very difficult for a warship's defensive systems to detect.

They also trained in air to air combat with the Royal Australian Air Force.

The Nowra deal with New Zealand was believed to have cost the Australian navy $10m a year.

Mr Pearson said the Skyhawk sale was all but complete although "some issues" with the United States State Department had yet to be worked out.

He denied a rumour circulating among New Zealand aviation circles that one of those issues was the State Department's anger at comments by Prime Minister Helen Clark over the American-led invasion of Iraq.

Because of the avionics and weapons systems in the Skyhawks the State Department must approve the sale.

Mr Pearson said he was "very confident" of the sale going through.

The Skyhawks would be dismantled and packed into containers for shipping back to America, he said.

Mr Pearson said Nowra was "a real possibility. We are in discussions with them".

He said some of the Skyhawks needed work but they were generally in very good condition.

"They have been very well maintained, very well kept. The New Zealand air force and Safe Air have done an excellent job of maintaining these airplanes."

Mr Pearson said ATSI engineers had thoroughly inspected the aircraft and their pilots had flown them and they were "very happy" with the condition of the Skyhawks.

He said one of the attractions of the Skyhawks was that they were fitted with identical systems to F16 fighters which were flown extensively by the United States Air Force and many other air forces.

In 2000 former politician Derek Quigley said the Skyhawk fleet and spares had a market value of about $120m although the New Zealand Ministry of Defence later said $85m would be a good price.

Mr Pearson said he was not at liberty to discuss the cost of buying the aircraft.

However, he said ATSI was very happy it was getting good value for its money.

"We are very happy with the deal we have negotiated. Both sides are happy."

He said it was now only a question of completing the final details of the sale and no one else was in the running.

The deal included all 17 Skyhawks and a large number of spares.

Mr Pearson said it was too soon to say how many New Zealand pilots and engineers were likely to be employed by ATSI.

"Some of the (maintenance) work will stay in New Zealand with Safe Air."

New Zealand originally had 24 Skyhawks after buying 14 brand new in 1970 and 10 second hand in 1984 from the Australian navy. Seven Skyhawks have been destroyed in crashes.

Mr Pearson said Skyhawks were still being flown by several countries, including Israel, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia and Singapore.

[Capt W E Johns]

http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,3762-2397079,00.html

The usual diplomatic 'it's not sold until the bottom line is signed' caveat is being trotted out. Here's the text:

The sale of the nation's mothballed fleet of Skyhawks is by no means a done deal, as some reports have suggested.

Some media outlets have suggested the 17 attack fighter bombers have been sold to an American company - Advanced Training Systems International.

But despite that, sales consultants Ernst and Young say ATSI is just one of a select group of three.

The company says the American company is extremely interested but is unsure if the organisation will close.

Ernst and Young says there has been no regulatory sign-off.

That is now out of the hands of the Government and up to ATSI.

The consultants are continuing to explore options in Europe and Asia for both the Skyhawks and Aermacchi aircraft.

Bulletin supplied by IRN Limited Copyright 2001 IRN Limited. All copyright in this bulletin remains the property of IRN Limited.

[HectorusRex]

This just arrived.

thanks HectorusRex

the defence minister is now saying they haven't been sold.....

@parliament.govt.nz

This probably means that they have been given away, rather than been sold:{

[You want it when?]

I recently met Gerry "Spud" Gallop who is one of the senior partners of ATIS. He was giving a presentation on how the rules that were implemented at the US Navy "Top Gun school" translate into todays maangement ethics.

Surely it's better to have those air frames flying than sitting their slowly rotting away?

[BlueWolf]

Absolutely it's better that they're flying.
The bad bit is that we now don't have them or anything to replace them.

Lucky the world is such a safe and peaceful place just now, as it has always been, and we don't have to worry about anyone from big overpolluted, overpopulated Asian nations harbouring desires on our clean green empty country and it's vast untapped resources.

I guess if we did we could always rely on the UN (laughter)

Or our Allies (more laughter)

Shaken my head so much at the stupidity of it all that I'm away to the chiropractor.....

[L J R]

anyone heard of rumours of the Nowra Contract?? [for FJ pilots]

Surely it must be in a reasonable US$ to attract those US types frokm America. Or if it is in $Aus, - and therefore not enough to seduce US or other foreign types there - ; are there sufficient Kiwi / Aus FJ types who would [& can] get out of RAAF to do the job?

Ex DD, how long is your and your buddies ROSO?


Do you think this company will pay well?
.

[jungly]

The skyhawks were not a credible defence..- however, the F16s (upgraded), may well have been.

Anyway, all that the global community ask is that NZ plays its part and, in that respect, anything would have been better than the current state of affairs ie: NOTHING

The sheep shaggers could have got away with not supporting Gulf War II if it wasnt for the muppet PM publicly bagging GWB. Nice one H! The result.......

NZ is being written out of a free trade agreement with the USA...at a time the NZ dollar is at record highs (making exports hopeless)...OOPS!

Oh well we shall add the lastest 'foot-n-mouth' quotes to "Helens Greatest Hits"..along with my personal favourite:

"We do not need an Air Attack Force as the world, an South Pacific in particular, are safe and stable" - within 6 months of this wise and learned comment we had:

1. 11/9 (9/11 for you Amercians)
2. 2 coups in Fiji
3. Peacekeepers in the Solomon Is.
4. Bougainville
5. East Timor and
6. Aceh (topical again)

Adding insult to injury her 'bonkers' comment about SARs killing more people than the 1917/18 flu pandemic (oops, got than one wrong too!) has, in part, resulted in record loses for the NZ tourism industry.

Why oh why do the NZ public put up with such an inane leader? Someone staple her in the mouth shut please!

On the plus side I see they Waitangi tribunal has ruled that the Maoris are indeed entitled to $$$ from off shore oil and natural gas (as it is a 'resource'). I assume that prior to European settlement these resources were used prolifically by the locals to power their cars and bbq's? Watch out folks, Helen will soon they'll be taxing the air that you breath - after all it too is a resource!

[Ex Douglas Driver]

It amuses (read: peeves me severely) me that all the articles say that "pilots and engineers are included in the deal". Where the hell are they getting these pilots and maintainers from?? Perhaps the NZ government does actually think of their military personnel as just depreciating assets that can be on-sold at their whim.

There is only 1 current A4 pilot in the RNZAF - a friend who is on a reserve contract to fly for 1 week a month.

Whoever actually buys the A4s, is getting them for a third of their value, so why not chuck in a few pilots as well. So what are they going to do? Demand that all of the lads return from their new jobs around the world, so that Helen can sweeten the deal a bit. We wouldn't want to have any say in our futures anyway.
Ha ha & b*gger off. :mad:

Just before we left, it was amazing how quickly the books were re-written to say that in spite of enlisting on a 20 year contract, it actually didn't mean anything, so no we weren't entitled to redundancy. :* (Although the RNZAF did release us from our ROSO)

[BlueWolf]

Jungly, thank you for your support of the most stupid assesment of the RNZAF strike wing to be promoted by the lefties and the peaceniks.

If the A4s were not a credible defence, how come they beat everyone on exercise for thirty-odd years?

This includes the RAF, RAAF, USAF, USN, RAN, RN, and the Singaporeans and Malaysians.

Our last exercise with the RAAF saw five Kahu A4s take out eight RAAF Hornets without loss to themselves.

Our last exercise with the Yanks saw the Skyhawks sink the US Navy 16 times, again without reciprocated loss.

The most recent exercise with the RN prompted the commander of the British flotilla to describe the A4s and P3s of the RNZAF as having provided the "most effective and credible threat" he had ever encountered in exercises, including those against the Americans and NATO allies.

The Pentagon consistently rated them as being able to defeat "any non-US force in south-east Asia."

This is fact, not regurgitated pinko government bull****. It's a matter of public and military record. Look it up.

The rest of your post I agree with wholeheartedly. It is irritating at best, however, to have the primary argument of fools and liars supported in a forum such as this by someone who should know better.

Upgraded to -C and -D capability the F-16s would have provided a better all-round air defence capability for New Zealand, but still would not have given the level of anti-ship strike capability that the A4s did, which is primarily what NZ needs them for.

[jungly]

Agreed, the numbers over the years have been exceptional....but I think the reputation (credibility) belongs to the aircrew not the Douglas itself.

In all roles the RNZAF has long had to 'invent' and adapt tactics to plug the holes left because of poor equipment. The kiwi A4 punched well above its weight at the hands off flexible, adaptable young drivers.

The Douglas was fine aircraft to which many have emotional attachments but it was the aircrew that made it 'potent'.

Im sure the kiwi ingenuity (deveolped over several rum-bos) would have turned the F16 into a fine anti shipping weapon too....and as a bonus you get an NVG compatible multi role aircraft. (What night tactical capability did the A4 have? [not even sure it had a weekend capability? ;) ])

The wicked witch at the helm axed the AAF as a role, the concept of self defence and ultimately self determination...not the A4. In so doing she has deprived the NZDF of some of its most capable lateral thinkers, deft hands and made NZ, in several respects, the 'dole-bludger' of the Sth Pacific and beyond.

:ok:

[10and6]

Blue wolf: When was this exercise that saw A4's take out eight aussie Hornets without loss?

I have the greatest respect for the RNZAF A4 Drivers who are/were complete professionals and extracted every ounce of potential capability out of their A4's. However the A4 is not a modern air to air fighter, with no BVR air to air weapons and subsonic performance only. To say that it comprehensively defeated a force of hornets in an exercise is laughable.

[BlueWolf]

10and6

It was the swansong performance for 75 Sqn RNZAF, against traditional grudge match foes 75 Sqn RAAF, at RAAF Base Tindall, NT, September 2001. The A4s also took out the Base.

Laughable maybe, but it happened. Sorry.

Jungly

Apologies for the misunderstanding; agree entirely with all that.

[Ex Douglas Driver]

Ahem... It was 2x 5 v 4 flows with a level Mk-82 attack against the 75 Sqn ops building in the middle. The Hornets were on a BARCAP limited to 0/2/2+. We initially pushed in the charlies (to get some initial hits), then ramped down to the weeds where we were able to run in at low low level to be able to pitch up in their shorts from underneath. It was certainly a valid tactic for us to flow in at extremely low level to make the most of radar shielding and our small size. A quick "polish hand grenade" thrown in at the right time, and we'd try to make the most of the short period of confusion. This involved a lot of throwing the chicken bones by us and a fair amount of luck, as our RWR and radar performance was "average"!!

We certainly weren't running at them in a wall of death in the deltas, facing AMRAAM shooters! In this case it would've been 10 - nil against us.

We then flew back down to Tindal that arvo for just a few quiet ales. I seem to remember through the ensuing haze that we were thrashed at crud!

[Navaleye]

What is the position of the opposition in NZ regarding the re-instatement of FJ capability in the RNZAF?

[flyboy007]

I don't really think reinstating a strike force is a particularly likely option unfortunately. While we can buy new jets overnight, getting the personnel back is the big problem. I think it was said when the dis-bandment began, it would take 5-10 years to regain the capability, due to loss of personnel of all trades.
How gutting to sit over here and watch NZ go down the tubes due to a hairy armpitted hippy with no idea!

[MobiusTrip]

Flyboy,

If I ever got a sniff that NZ was thinking about re-booting its fighter force, then I (plus I dare say a gazillion others) would be fighting for a place in the line to help make it happen. I think NZ is just about the nicest place on Earth (ignoring the current govt and the lack of FF).

You never know..............

MT

[Capt W E Johns]

Unfortunately our man in Wellington Simon Power has got foot-in-mouth disease. There are some encouraging aspects to his speech (text below) but an obsequious kow-tow to the Yanks isn't going to win him any votes, even in the pro-defence faction.

Still, for all you chaps overseas: come home! Vote National!

Nats will send army wherever US goes
08 May 2004
By HANK SCHOUTEN

New Zealand's armed forces would be sent wherever Australia, the United States or Britain wanted them, under a new policy announced by National.

"Without reservation we will support our close allies, Australia, the United States and Britain when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon," party defence spokesman Simon Power said. "New Zealand has been an ally of these nations throughout the 20th century. We recommit to doing so in the 21st," he said in a speech to National's central regional conference.

In the past 20 years, New Zealand had allowed its defence relationship with its traditional allies to slide "because we have not been prepared to match our allies' expectations. We must show we can be relied upon". He said: "Post-September 11, Australia stepped up to the plate . . . Australia unhesitatingly joined her allies the UK and the US in the fight. It was a principled policy decision.

"New Zealand must be seen as a credible combat-ready nation. Ready to defend our country in a physical attack, ready to defend our freedom from dangerous regimes, ready, willing and able to cooperate with allies who share our values."

Australia spent more than $20 billion, or 2 per cent of gross domestic product, on defence while New Zealand spent less than $2 billion, or 0.8 per cent of gdp. National would be looking for at least 1 per cent, he said.

He suggested a third frigate could be a priority for the navy, and New Zealand could work with Australia to develop an air strike capability.

He criticised Government plans to spend $500 million on a multi-role ship and patrol craft which would do work for customs, conservation, fisheries, maritime safety, police and other agencies. "The first priority for a naval force is defence."

The air force had been "reduced to a maritime search and rescue, civil defence and Helen's personal transport".

[Dave Martin]

Yeah, superb. I don't see how you can say "Vote national" while in the same breath quoting their policies vis a vis supporting the yanks. Saying New Zealand's record is second to Australia's because of a refusal to backup America and the govt here in England is absurd, and will be viewed as such, the world over.

I for one think its a fair call that Helen made the decision to abandon Ohakea and our strike capability. Nothing against the abilities of our A4 crews and the aircraft themselves, but with limited defense budgets far better to focus attention on improving Hercs, P3's and Iroquois; whose records have undeniably served more use to the country. If any squadron was going to go, surely this is the one that had to be chopped? The question is, should one have gone in the first place...that is moot.

Sure we can play on about future threats etc etc, but the best place for NZ to play its role in the worlds military allegiences is either with logistical support and specialist foot soldier support in the form of the "squadron", OR, peacekeeping roles. Other than that, offensive air weapons have been too rarely used and in all likelyhood still will be too rarely used, to justify their existence.

It's a tough decision, but one that needs to be taken. Seen it made with the Comanche, perhaps should have been made with the F22 and Typhoon. We all like our planes, especially new shiny ones, but white elephants have to be seen and prevented. Expensive, redundant squadrons are the same. They can perform their role admirably, but one also has to step back and consider their relevence.

Someone earlier brought up 9/11 as a motivation for keeping an attack squadron. I think Afghanistan and Iraq are prime examples that offensive, devistating military operations AREN'T of use to NZ. Seems they wouldn't have been invited to play with the yanks anyway, until they are needed to clean up the mess. I challenge anyone to tell me that having A4's deliving 500 pounders onto the Middle-eastern soil will make NZ safer.

I fear from some of the above threads theres still far too much of a "reds under the beds" attitude prevalent in NZ. Sure, if your ex-75 SQN its understandably regardless of perceived threat: its your job and you have every right to want to maintain it. Outside of that circle I think New Zealand needs to be a little more objective.

[juliet]

well dave, how bout you tell us about the upgrades that the hercs, p3's, and hueys have had. finding it hard to think of anything?

i dont think that the issue most rnzaf people had with the retirement of the strike force was that they were losing a nice shiny toy that was fun to fly. i think the dissappointment was in the fact that the nzdf was losing a capability and that through this the nz govt was effectively wimping out of their international responsibility. previous posts have referred to the environment in which nz resides and the requirement to play some part in the defence of the region.

the govt promised that the money that would be saved from the retirement of the strike force would be put back into the rest of the nzdf. this hasnt happened, and is i believe the greatest issue. if the labour govt had done as promised then the nzdf would have p3's with a fully updated back end. the hercs would have been replaced or at least sent for a major upgrade to replace many components that need to be brought up to modern standards. the navy would have another frigate. if these and all the other promises had been delivered on then i think that there would be much less criticism of nz as they would still be upholding their committment to the region. but they haven't. nz now stands as the dole bludger of the region, looking to others to provide the security that is sorely needed in an unstable part of the world.

[Dave Martin]

I agree whole-heartedly that the cash should have gone to the rest of the NZDF and that this is the core issue, if not in whole, then at least in part.

But I do believe though, that NZ is better placed and can contribute more by focussing on our other assets. Losing the strike capability per-se is no reason to get hot under the collar at the government.

I am somewhat circumspect about investment in another Navy frigate however. There is some interesting academic discussion in the UK about the continued effectiveness of such classes of vessel.

I would like to say that NZ will still see an increased investment in the defense forces as a whole. From personal experience, they could start by improving basic soldiers kit - purchasing our own webbing, humping Ellis packs and still getting by with an AN/PRC-77 set was pretty sad.

[flyboy007]

MT: should the opportunity ever arrise, I will see you there!

[juliet]

you are missing the point dave, the govt hasnt reinvested the saved money from the cancellation of the strike force, therefore nz is not better placed and has not benefited.

[Capt W E Johns]

There's an awful lot more to a strike squadron than delivering ordnance.

We have "the squadron" (SAS) to deploy overseas? Great - but they're not FAC trained, and have repeatedly been asking for for FAC training.

We have frigates? Excellent - only, they get to train anti-air manoeuvres with civilian piloted, non-radar-equipped aeroplanes. Actually, aeroplane. (Did someone say ship-strike package? Not likely...)

We have Hercs and P3s to send into theatre? Nice - except, in the very near future, they will be captained by pilots who've never moved faster than 240 knots. And who wouldn't know DACM if it shot them in the @rse.

The Aussies have F-18s - cool, only they haven't got anybody to play with any more, coz the Yanks are too busy saving the world and the Kiwis don't own an aeroplane that they can practice against.

I'm not suggesting we should own or operate A4's/F-16s/F-18s. But to have relatively modern jets sitting in the garage depreciating because of a decision in principle is a waste of money and a negligent waste of a valuable training resource.

[allan907]

At the risk of being controversial.......perhaps it would have been better had NZ opted in to the Australian Federation:ok:

On second thoughts that might have meant that Hairy Helen the Melon might have been in our Parliament:yuk: :yuk:

[currawong]

"basic soldiers kit" includes being able to request your own air.

Like a fire extinguisher. Just because you have not used one for a while does not mean you never will.

By the way Dave, its ALICE.

[Dave Martin]

I stand corrected, ALICE...it slips of the tongue as something different.

To further the "fire extinguisher" argument: my house could also have a defibrilator and ambulance in the garage not to mention earthquake proof foundations and a typhoon resistant rooftop. All a bit excessive and costly though. Better to keep the fire-extinguisher and call on the ambulance when required. Keep paying our dues to the UN, and our part in conflicts when it is justified, and we are in effect paying our taxes.

Just because it *might one day* be required, doesn't in itself justify the diversion of funds. Things have to be rationalised.

As for needing our own air support. Why must it be our own? I would be most disturbed if we found ourselves in a situation of waging a war on our own. If such was the case then I would seriously doubt the true nature of our allies and I would also doubt what use a squadron of A4's would be against the invading hordes, if our neighbours weren't already involved.

Best for us to focus on a smaller number of assetts and build them up to a more credible level. The fact that this hasn't happened is a flaw I'll readily acknowledge, but that is not to say it won't be hopefully remedied. Pooling resources, rather than a collection of dissimilar resources might well be the order of the day.

[juliet]

dave, do you have ANY knowledge or understanding of what it takes to effectively train a combat force? judging by your posts you dont. the standard of training available to the nzdf has been seriously weakened wrt exposure to all aspects of a modern battlefield. i feel sorry for the guys who may be sent to the front line some day to see and have to deal with fast air for the very first time, whether friendly or not.

[ROLLERSKATE]

Silberfuchs is quite right in saying that the A4s could not defend NZ and it is inconceiveable that they would have been deployed
operationally as the RNZAF does not the have necessary transport a/c to support an operation for all but a very short time.
The NZDF has been starved of funds not only by the present government but by their predecessors also.
They are now flying Orions that have in excess of 20000 flying hours, 38 year old Hercules and Hueys and training helicopters that were designed in the 1940s.
The Huey and Sioux replacement was due to be announced months ago - what has happened to them?
The navy are getting a multi role ship designed to civiian specifications and may have to lease a ship from another navy for training when the Canterbury is retired.
I'm not a New Zealander but am always saddened when I read how proud your politicians are of their servicemen and are quite happy to send them to the worlds trouble spots when they are unwilling to provide them with the equipment they require. (the UK has the same situation with Tony and his cronies).
NZ is never going to be a major world power but they appear to want to play their part and to do this they require a/c to train their troops for FAC? etc. (Aermacchis), modernised or newer Orions (ex Dutch or USN P3Cs),modernised or new transports (C130Js?), modern helicopters which can operate in hotter climates (Blackhawks or similar?) a modern trainer (Squirrels or similar?), 3rd frigate and a multi role ship built to military specifications.
NZ is never going to spend multi billions on defence but purchasing or modernising equipment sooner rather than later gives the servicemen the equipment servicemen require for the job and with cheaper operating costs they may in the long term actually save money?
If you look at the RNZAF website there are many projects but are these just wish lists or do the government actually intend to proceed?
Helen either you want NZ to have an armed forces or you don't,
you can't sit on the fence forever, either provide the resources or become the Ireland of the south pacific.

[currawong]

Dave,

I am not suggesting NZ maintains a network of spy satellites and a space shuttle for the deployment of same.

Retaining the ability to say, intercept an unidentified radar contact would seem sensible.

My thought is, sometime a simple tasking such as this will appear and the NZDF will come up short.

[BlueWolf]

Have faith, people.

We're getting a change of Government, and we're getting our Air Force back. I haven't fought this battle every day for the past four years for any other result.

The Nats are listening to our arguments, and their leader is an intelligent man who is committed to rebuilding our relationship with the US and with other traditional allies (read: Australia and the UK). He is also receptive to factual arguments concerning New Zealand's real position and concerns; a large area of land, sea, and air to protect, and a small, but well-educated and technologically fluent population, supported by a modest yet capable industrial infrastructure.

New Zealand changed its priorities from land-based to air-based defences during WWII for exactly these reasons. We do not need to re-invent the wheel in the 21st century. Don Brash understands this. I have met and spoken with him personally on this matter, as I have with Simon Power.

We will have a general election in New Zealand before Christmas of this year (though it is not scheduled until September 2005), and a National-lead coalition will form the new Government.

We will get our Air Combat Force back.

Opinions expressed here, connected with the relative cost of Air Combat Forces, the imagined lack of capability of the mothballed Kahu Skyhawks (which aren't going to be sold to anyone while a Labour government presides in Wellington, trust me), or other sycophantic, pro-Helen, pro-gutless pinko, non-thinking superfluous fecal matter, are not intelligent, not informed, not useful, and not germaine to the issue. Either keep them to yourselves or confine them to Jetblast, but don't detract from the forum's assessment of your intelligence by posting them here.

New Zealand needs Air Combat Forces, the opposition knows it, and we are getting them back. Any other opinion is a pointless waste of time and oxygen.

To those who have left, either by their own volition or through lack of alternative, stay in touch and keep prepared. We have worked the Government-To-Be through hardware, and now we're working on pay rates and other benefits. We need you to come home and help make this thing happen.

Happy thoughts

RP

[Oz_in_oz]

Well spoken Blue Wolf - I will indeed keep my eye out. I for one would have to seriously look at what happens when the new government looks for the ACF to regenerate.

[pr00ne]

Bluewolf,

Based on this little tirrade, are you sure it's the Nationalists you want back and not the National Socialists?


"Opinions expressed here, connected with the relative cost of Air Combat Forces, the imagined lack of capability of the mothballed Kahu Skyhawks (which aren't going to be sold to anyone while a Labour government presides in Wellington, trust me), or other sycophantic, pro-Helen, pro-gutless pinko, non-thinking superfluous fecal matter, are not intelligent, not informed, not useful, and not germaine to the issue. Either keep them to yourselves or confine them to Jetblast, but don't detract from the forum's assessment of your intelligence by posting them here."


Is there any serious possibility of any Govt in NZ being able to afford to resurrect the Air Combat Force?
What are you going to have to cut from your other capabilities to afford this luxury?

[BlueWolf]

For God's sake pr00ne, pull your head out of your ar$e.

Is there any serious possibility of any Govt in NZ being able to afford to resurrect the Air Combat Force?

The annual cost of running the RNZAF combat wing was NZ$80 million.

9.8 - that's nine point eight - cents, per taxpayer, per day.

Compare this with the $12.73 - that's twelve dollars and seventy three cents - which the same taxpayer spends on the same day, supporting social welfare in this country.

I have done the numbers, many times over, and so have many others. The Helengrad government's figures simply do not add up. That's about as basic as it gets.

Frankly I'm bored sh1tless with going over the same fiscal realities, time and time again, with ill-informed morons who have been indoctrinated with left-wing pacifist cr@p, and who refuse to look at the actual, verifiable facts.

Malaysia purchased 36 ex-USAF inventory, -A and -B version F16s, in 2001, with spares, servicing, and the MLU package, for US$136 million.

New Zealand is currently spending NZ$320 million per year keeping artists on the dole, because they are not good enough to be able to produce art which anyone wants to buy. Of course we can afford it, you dumb :mad:

National Socialists. For goodness sake. What on earth are you?

Recreating the RNZAF combat wing will cost about NZ$400 million and take about eighteen months.
That one sentence is the result of some two year's study and countless hours of research, and hundreds of pages of reports. I do not intend to reproduce them here for your benefit. If you want to argue the point with me, go do the same work yourself.

Lazy, mindless, socialist idiot.

[pr00ne]

Bluewolf,

Sounds more like Brownshirt!

My you are good, so much better than everyone else in fact, be they pacifist, left winger or an actual Govt!

Remind me again, why do you want this patheticaly small force of obsolete fast jets?

[Dave Martin]

Jeeze Bluewolf,
Watch out! The communists are coming! New Zealand is at risk of sinking into the ocean under the tyranny of a liberal left-wing majority! Shock horror! Only our glorious attack squadron with the assistance of a National Party leadership can save the day!

"...or other sycophantic, pro-Helen, pro-gutless pinko, non-thinking superfluous fecal matter, are not intelligent, not informed, not useful, and not germaine to the issue...."

Nice one mate, your've cleared up this issue in an incredibly intelligent, well conceived argument. Of all the comments posted on this thread, I still wasn't quite convinced of the need for a strike wing, despite the interesting viewpoints put forward...that was until I read what you just posted. Now, in awe, I realise how right you are - I must vote National!

Seriously, much of the input on here has been informative and well mdoerated. You are way over the line in that remark.
Why even bother to bring up this "vote National" "Vote Labour" bu11sh1t? But if you are are the kind of company that the leader of the National Party keeps, I shudder.

Maybe your A4K will keep the New Zealand shores safe from "socialist" idiots like myself. You aren't, or ever have been, a member of the RNZAF have you?

[Capt W E Johns]

Lets turn this around, DM, pr00ne - how about you defend your point of view, instead of assuming that because the government says so you've got it right.

-Why have we had over thirty aeroplanes sitting in hangars for years costing the taxpayer money for no benefit?
-Why are they not being used to train New Zealand and Australian defence forces, even if it's just until they are sold?
-Why hasn't the government been able to find a buyer?
-Why is it that jets which fly for hours every day (bet you were ignorant of that) are banned from actually doing any work, despite the Navy and Army crying out for training support?

If you want a lesson in why we've got LAVs and not F-16s, there are plenty of people here who can tell you all about that. Here's a clue - it hasn't got anything at all to do with government policy or the relative merits of retaining a strike capability.

[Dave Martin]

CWEJ, why bother?
Bluewolf sums up pretty well the standard reaction to anyone who dares question what those in the institutionalised circle of the NZDF think....I don't know how many times I've been called a communist, socialist, labour voter, pinko, queer or left winger simply for uttering those dreaded words, "I don't think we need the strike wing". The slagging tirade seems to be the acceptable means of discussing a quite valid statement, or at least one open to discussion. Ever wondered why the services succeed in alienating so many in the civilian world or why the social cleavages on these issues are so vast?

Clearly the relationship between Labour, the MOD and the NZDF is the pits, but it's these kind of idiotic reactions from the right with similarly antagonist actors on the opposite side in New zealand that drives the wedge in. You want your strike wing? I suggest a bit of soul searching goes on from all involved.

Referring to your actual message, you make an awful big assumption saying my views are based simply on the governments say so.

The simple fact is the govt ditched the strike wing to save cash and intends to keep it that way. I'm sure we agree on that much. The process has thus far been botched (not unusual in govt or military circles). I think we agree on that. The savings originally promised aren't currently being made. I'm sure we probably both agree on that much too. The savings will be acheived in the long term. I suspect you are more pessimistic then me, but I certainly beleive they will..

Perhaps if Helen spent 700mil on the F16's rather than on LAVs in the first place I'd have been happy with the attack sqn we would have received (even given that I would still feel it was a wholly unecessary unit), especially given the bargain price. Well, that hasn't happened. Now we have LAVs and not F16s (and we all know the army doesn't come out of the LAV deal looking good either does it?). We've spent a sh1t load of cash getting to this stage, and now we can either restore the strike wing, put the tents back up at Ohakea, all on top of the massive expenditure so far, in order to get a capablitlity that I DON'T THINK IS NECESSARY (this I think is where we differ). There are apparently enough people voting for labour that this obviously isn't a KEY issue for the voters either, despite the preference for the maintainence of a strike wing.

I've said it before, over and over, I don't like that the cash hasn't been redistributed as promised. It pisses me off that Helen hasn't coughed up either for the rest of the armed forces or if she felt like it, even for the social sector (sorry, Bluewolf, but I really don't care if some hippy artist is on the dole, nor some Afghan refugee - both of whom sound more deserving in my opinion than you do). There is nothing I would like more than to see 3, 5, 42 and the army to get the equipent and capability they deserve.

Fact is, opening the bases and re-activating the strike wing isn't going to do that.

BTW, Bluewolf, if you are concerned for the welfare and security of New Zealand your vote National rhetoric is paradoxical. You want a peaceful, safe New Zealand in todays climate? Sorry to tell you, an increased and overtly offensive alliance with the US and Australia, which National so loves, is going to do just the opposite. Thankfully the Vietnamese, Lao and Cambodians are a slightly more forgiving bunch for our previous foreys and support of the Americans. I suggest you get out a bit more, sunshine. For your infomation, to many who don't beleive in NZ having armed forces at all, the military looks very much like a form of social welfare too. Before you start crapping on about dole bludgers, I think you should be grateful for the fact that any cash at all ends up in the military. By the sounds of your anger, the greatest threat to New Zealand are pacifists, and those on the left? 'Fraid a squadron of A4's isn't got to help you fix them either. Really don't know what your gonna do.

Out.

[henry crun]

Quote "I don't know how many times I've been called a communist, socialist, labour voter, pinko, queer or left wing".

With remarks like "I think you should be grateful for the fact that any cash at all ends up in the military" I wonder why ?
:rolleyes:

[Magoodotcom]

Come on now Dave! Don't hold back on us...tell us what you REALLY think!

You're not a quasi pinko etc etc....you're just ignorant. :confused:

The A-4Ks represented a very capable strike and anti shipping capability, one which could have been maintained for at least another decade and which would not have been enhanced much by buying decade old F-16s with essentially similar kit on board.

It doesn't matter whether NZ was unable to deploy the A-4s to a far flung $hit fight to participate in the gig or not, the fact is a competent air arm is a source of national pride, especially when it can hold its own against bigger and badder opposition like those guys could and regularly did. Just cos you're not one of the one's who felt that pride is irrelevant, many did.

The fact that Helen is still there is probably more of a sad indictment of the apathy most people have towards having a say as is their democratic right, rather than one of support for her defence policies. :zzz:

As an Aussie, we miss the Kahus and their fine crews, and hope this ATSI deal does come off so some of them and some ex-RNZAF guys and gals can return to Nowra in the near future.

Cheers! :ok:

[Dave Martin]

Henry,
Please, if you read what I wrote correctly you would realise that isn't MY view.

The fact is, there are people out there who beleive NZ shouldn't have a military at all, and they have some equally solid arguments. I'm not one of them. But if someone starts going on about social welfare and dole bludgers, well, they're leaving themselves open really aren't they?

I suggest you re-read my post as you seem to be reacting in exactly the same manner.

If I reminded you of the fact that there are people out there who also beleive we should be a nuclear armed nation, does that make me a right-wing, militiarist, merely for mentioning another viewpoit?

Come on.

Magoodotcom,
Think I told you what my view is.

Have I ever denied that A-4K\'s were capable? Certainly I do beleive we would be better off with F-16\'s, at least in airframe terms but the point is moot. We don\'t have \'em any more, and that is going to continue. So rather than beating our heads against the wall that we no longer have a particular capability, move on, push for the sale and get the money put in to the rest of the services. At the moment the argument seems to be: "the money hasn\'t be re-distributed, we want the money for the NZDF....so give us our strike wing back". That\'s not going to get us anywhere.

National pride is not reason enough to hold \'em, and my exact point was that defense issues are so low down the public agenda that we are in agreement here - she was not chosen for her policies in that area. The statistics are actually the opposite to what you assume anyway; you\'ll find if more people vote, the proportion of that vote will almost certainly go to Labour, so voter apathy isn\'t the reason either. That is the simple demographic of the of the voting/non voting population.

P.S. What is the progress on the ATSI deal? I haven\'t followed it recently, but I either keep hearing it\'s all on, or all off. Lots of people seem to claim to know for sure, but it seems no one really does.

[ROLLERSKATE]

NZ will never use its attack a/c against air or land forces independently they would operate as part of an coalition. that is unless they were to attack Australia; NZ would have to deploy their a/c to a base thousands of miles away from home and to do this as a credible force they would have to have transport/AAR support from other nations, if these were already operationally part of this coalition would they be willing or able to assist the NZDF.
Those who dream of an air defence force live in a fantasy world - NZ has the sixth largest exclusive economic zone in the world they would need 10s of fighters, ground based surveillance radar, AAR a/c and AEW a/c to police it costing billions of dollars - and how many a/c enter NZ airspace annually to justify these costs?
A report by a US Admiral if I remember rightly calculated that rebuilding a P3 costs about 85% the cost of purchasing a new a/c and will stay in service for only 50%? of the new a/c.
So how short sighted is it rebuilding old P3s, C130s, and hueys -In the short term it maybe cheaper but in the longterm I doubt it?
with the NZ$ been so strong is it not a good time for your government to speak to Mr. Lockheed, Mr. Sikosrsky or Bell?
NZ should have an anti ship and anti submarine capacity which is wher the only external threat comes from but unless NZ discovers lots of oil and becomes the Saudi of the Pacific and has
more money than sense they should build up on their stengths
and support the larger nations in operations i.e. logistics, communications, medical support and not become a liability by contributing offensive power which is insignificant by US and Australian standards and very expensive.
The RNZAF, RNZN and NZ Army do need more better equipment
but live in the real world and be realistic in your ambitions.

[Magoodotcom]

Dave

Agreed, the point is moot as they're gone, but they sure aint forgotten. It seems we agree on the apathy issue as well. Next beer's on me. :}

It was suggested to me recently by someone who should know that the RAN should never have gotten rid of its Skyhawks in 1982 when the Melbourne was paid off. We had a fully depeciated asset with heaps of spares which would have been a valuable tactical strike capability and missile platform, in addition to the fleet support and DACT role the Kiwis later performed. Might have helped get the F/A-18s through to 2015+ instead of 2012ish which we're looking at at the moment. :ugh:

But, I digress...last I heard was that ATSI has signed an MoA with Ernst & Young for all 17 jets plus spares and some support, and the deal will proceed pending US State Dept and DoD approval. Apparently the APG-66 is a sticking point, even though the Chinese have already had the opportunity to fully test a Pakistani F-16! :rolleyes:

Is anyone closer to the action in the land of the long rugby losing streak...err...sorry, white cloud able to confirm?

Cheers :ok:

[BlueWolf]

Part One

DM, pr00ne, weary though I am from my long and arduous labours, I shall attempt to respond to the points and questions you raise.

Much of what I have to say you may find surprising, or feel to be irrelevant; however, if you persevere through all of it, I hope that you will be able to see the greater picture which I shall attempt to paint.

Simple things first; no, I have never been a member of the RNZAF, nor have I ever made any secret of that fact. I have happily stated several times that I am a guest in this forum. As an apparent newcomer here you may not have been aware of that. Out of interest, in which branch and trade did you yourself serve?

Secondly I am neither a member of, nor a voter for, the National Party. However in New Zealand, as is the case in many countries, electoral choice is effectively between two ideological entities, variously described as being either of the Left or of the Right. A more cynical viewpoint suggests that we have a choice between Fools and Criminals. Personally I prefer the Criminals, for the simple expedient that they are aware that they are Bad. The Fools, I believe, are an altogether more dangerous creature when given the reins of power, because they do not realise themselves to be Fools, and they genuinely believe themselves to be correct.

As New Zealand begins to mature, our society has acknowledged the need for electoral reform, and we have adopted the MMP voting system as a first step towards democracy. It's a long way yet to the true representative democracy which can be delivered by either PV or STV, but it's also a lot closer than the minority dictatorship produced by FPP. As a result of this change, coalition Governments have become the norm in NZ, though the major fault with MMP is that these can still be minority Governments, provided that there is parliamentary support on matters of confidence and supply. Ergo, the minority party dictatorship can still hold sway as it did under FPP, albeit that it must answer to a few of the demands of minor parties outside the coalition, who provide it with confidence and supply votes.

This being the case, we currently have the option of either a Labour-lead coalition or a National-lead coalition. Personally I support the latter. The idea that there could be a third, more centrist, alternative, is a very nice one, but I cannot in all reality envisage such a proposition occurring in the near or foreseeable future.
I do belong to a smaller party which exists to the right of the centre of the New Zealand political spectrum. I, and others, have an ongoing dialogue both with the leadership of the National Party, and with the leaders of other Parties of not dis-similar orientation. It is generally accepted by all parties concerned that a National-lead coalition is both the most likely, and the most desirable - for our purposes and intentions - of the realistic options available to the New Zealand electorate. Everyone accepts that the very essence of consensus politics is compromise; and within that acceptance, we are going to have to come to terms with some of their ideas, and they are genuinely listening to some of ours.

I'm not all that well schooled in the detail of National Socialists, or Brownshirts, or any other fascist organisations, mostly because such philosophy and extremism holds no appeal for me. However my orientation is more generally towards the right of the political spectrum than to the left, inasmuch as one can accurately use such a yardstick to assess a person's views on particular subjects, or the background and mindset from which they are made. I actually think that the whole left-right linear perspective of politics is incorrect and misleading; my preference for a descriptive analogy would be a horseshoe, where extremism of either persuasion is drawn as being closer to its "opposing" alternative, simply because the effects of such extremism on the people and nation enduring it, and the external behaviour of Governments employing it, are very similar regardless of whether they are deemed left wing or right wing.

In social terms I do consider myself to be a liberal, though I should make it clear that the term "liberal" as I use it is a reference to classical liberal values, and not, as it has sometimes come to be known nowadays, as a euphemism for support of left-wing socialist values and policies.

I'm not a fan of welfarism. Certainly, I believe in and support the concept and practice of the Caring Society. I believe firmly that we should look after the old, the young, the sick, and the weak, the victims of misfortune or of the destructive actions of others; of those who, for whatever reason, cannot look after themselves. This, I believe, is what sets us apart from nations and societies who do not feel or display such concern. We are morally superior to these nations. However, we do not bask in such self-anointed glory, or even visit it much in thought; we simply do it, because it is the right thing to do, more so than because there but for the grace of God go any of us.
But I don't support the idea of providing a living for those who, despite being perfectly capable, choose not to help themselves. In such instances, I believe, welfare rots the soul of the human individual, and as such, of the whole of society itself.

You will be pleased to know that I am not in receipt of any Governmental handout of which, in your expressed opinion, I am undeserving. I am in fact a part of Middle New Zealand. I don't qualify for any state benefits, because I now earn too much to allow me to be eligible for them. Good on me; but my road away from the nipple of Nanny State has been a personal one. I chose, quite deliberately, some years ago, to make my own way in the world; I took out a student loan, went back to "school", learned a new trade, paid off my loan, and I'm now doing quite nicely. All this I achieved whilst working full time, raising three teenagers, and running a firewood business after work and at the weekends. In other words, I worked. I worked my ar$e off, and I'm still doing that. I have no sympathy at all for snivelling layabouts who sit at home and bemoan their fate while there is work to be done and enterprise to be made. So, maybe they have to do a few things which wouldn't be their first choice; cleaning vomit out of a pub urinal at two in the morning wasn't my first choice either, but it is one of the things I have done in order to first make the ends meet, and then to get ahead.
So, maybe some of them have to move away from their "whanau". So what? Maybe they just need to harden up and grow up a little. I have no sympathy either for limp-dick pinko apologists who support such people, and who promote their "right" to live at my expense while they wallow in self-pity. Maybe all they need to do is get off their fat, lazy, brown, white, or yellow, ar$es, and do something to help themselves. I went without some of life's niceties while I was clawing my way back up above the poverty line, and it didn't kill me. I doubt, despite their protestations, that it will kill them, either, and I seriously and genuinely refute the arguments of those who would allow such folk to live on welfare handouts for generations on end, that they are doing them any favours. In fact I have come to believe that quite the reverse is true.

The point of the above is that, in my opinion, New Zealand spends an inordinately vast percentage of its limited disposable monies on supporting an unnecessarily huge and bloated social welfare system (and other flights of political fancy), leaving proportionately too little available for expenditure in other essential areas. Health and Education are the two examples which spring to mind. We can't pay the nurses or the teachers enough to stay here, we fly oncology patients to Australia for treatment, 300 rural schools are scheduled for closure, Pharmac is unable to fund beta-interferon treatment for multiple sclerosis sufferers, and so on.
Despite the doubtless honourable intentions of the 1930s architects of "welfare from the cradle to the grave", the reality of welfarism is that it traps those who it claims to help, in entrenched poverty, both physically and psychologically. I'm sorry if you find this difficult to accept, but the economic, social, and medical evidence of it is now irrefutable.
Defence is one of the other essential areas of Government concern and expenditure which has suffered because of incorrect prioritisation and chronic under-funding. The National Party is by no means lily-white in this regard; they have been as culpable as Labour in terms of running down military capabilities, and we have told them so in no uncertain terms. In opposition, great thought-provoker that it is, they are at least listening, not only to the truth that more must be spent on Defence by New Zealand than has been the case for several decades, but that such expenditure as is committed, must be directed to where it can be both most effective, and most cost-effective, in terms of New Zealand's immediate needs, and as concerns our ability to contribute best to the security of our region and to the needs of our allies - such as we still have.

Insofar as these are concerned, where New Zealand prioritises its Defence spending must take several realities into account. We are a very small, but well-educated society, technologically competent, and with a small, but quite advanced, industrial infrastructure. We have a very, very large area of land, air, and sea to protect, and not many people with which to achieve this. The only external directions from which New Zealand, being an isolated maritime nation, may be threatened or blockaded, are by sea and by air. Simple logic dictates that it is in these arenas which New Zealand must focus its Defence efforts.

Part Two

Land forces cannot protect New Zealand. We simply do not possess the population resource to be able to raise sufficiently large armies to fulfil this task. Such land forces as we do raise are only of use to New Zealand when we deploy them overseas. This has always been the case. New Zealand\'s military land forces need to be concentrated on special and specialist units, the SAS, mountain and jungle specialist troops, airborne and marine trained forces, and the like. Their deployment will of necessity be alongside, and at the behest of, larger partners with whom we maintain alliances, such as the US, Britain, and Australia.
But they cannot of themselves provide for the defence of New Zealand. This capability must be met independently by combat oriented air and sea assets. Within this framework, an air strike capability is not only an indispensable item, but in fact one to which New Zealand needs to afford maximum priority.

This lesson is not new. During WWII, the New Zealand Government switched its focus from land forces to the Air Force, for exactly these same reasons. We do not need to reinvent the wheel in the 21st century.

I must take issue with a couple of points you raise Dave. You claim that "The simple fact is the govt ditched the strike wing to save cash". This isn\'t true. Helen Clark was at the head of a protest march against the acquisition of the Skyhawks in 1970. There is a photo of it in the New Zealand Herald archives. The truth is that the Government ditched the strike wing because Helen Clark was ideologically opposed to it during her undergraduate days, and has steadfastly refused to grow up and smell the coffee of the real world ever since. This, combined with a faulty electoral system which is able to afford absolute power to one person at the head of a party attracting only 41% of the vote (not a majority by any definition of mathematics), allowed the unlawful disbandment of the RNZAF strike wing. The action was a clear breach of Section 24 (d) of the Defence Act 1990.
The "tyranny of a liberal left-wing majority!" as you so eloquently put it, is a little misleading in the light of the hard facts concerning the present New Zealand Government. Even with coalition partners, the Government\'s support is a mere 46% of the electorate, which constitutes an absolute minority, however much you would prefer not to believe it. Compare this with opinion polls which put anywhere between 55% and 73% being in support of retaining the ACF. The scrapping of the ACF was unmandated, illegal, and against the expressed wishes of a clear majority of New Zealanders. There will come a time, perhaps long after it has been restored, that those who were responsible for this illegal and unconstitutional action, will be held to account before the courts. Of this, you may be certain. The wheels of the judicial system grind uncommon slow, but they do grind.

I am a little concerned at what I perceive from your post to be a hint of the "better red than dead" mentality.

"BTW, Bluewolf, if you are concerned for the welfare and security of New Zealand your vote National rhetoric is paradoxical. You want a peaceful, safe New Zealand in todays climate? Sorry to tell you, an increased and overtly offensive alliance with the US and Australia, which National so loves, is going to do just the opposite. Thankfully the Vietnamese, Lao and Cambodians are a slightly more forgiving bunch for our previous foreys and support of the Americans."

I don\'t consider any of those nations to constitute an immediate threat to New Zealand. Such real and immediate threats as do exist, do so in the form of expansionism in China, and of Islamic militancy throughout south-east Asia, primarily in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. These threats are not simply going to go away because New Zealand chooses to put its head under the covers, or wave a sign proclaiming that we are Not Friends Of Uncle Sam. Such action places us at even greater risk.
And I have "been out" plenty, thanks sunshine, from when I was building anti-tank guns for the British MoD in the eighties, until now. What were you doing then, "sunshine"? From the tone of your posts, and what I perceive to be a clear lack of understanding of the realities of history and of the human condition, I guess that you were probably at primary school.

National pride may not be a primary consideration in the retention of the ACF, though it is certainly a bonus with flow-on benefits which should not be disregarded. More important, perhaps, are three things for which the ACF is essential.
One, it gives New Zealand the ability to independently meet such real and immediate threats as currently exist or are able to be immediately forecast.
Two, it enables New Zealand to independently train other elements of land, sea, and air forces, to operate within an air threat environment.
Three, it provides a confirmation of professional credibility to the NZDF, which is essential to the ongoing recruitment and retention of quality personnel across all three services.

I am not going to revisit the subject of the capabilities of the A-4K. If you aren\'t already fully aware of the extent of this particular airframe\'s advanced abilities, you have no legitimate place in this debate.

All this, my dear pr00ne, is precisely why I want to retain this "patheticaly small force of obsolete fast jets".

Getting old, yes; obsolete, no.
Pathetically small, perhaps; but perhaps big enough to be effective, and certainly sufficiently advanced, and with sufficiently capable crews, to be so.

There is one further point I wish to make, though neither of you may like it very much. I will put it as gently as I feel I can.

Firmly held, and well-thought through though you may consider them to be, and eloquently expressed (as Dave\'s certainly are), it is possible, whether you have considered this or not, that your opinions are, at the end of the day, still wrong.

In addition, your right to hold such opinions, and to express them in a free society - a right which I steadfastly support even where I don\'t agree with them - has been won by the sacrifice of others; a sacrifice made all the more unnecessarily harsh, on altogether too many occasions, by the inaction of ignorant Governments who, through stupidity, naiveté, and the unthinking support of the misinformed, have failed to provide those making the sacrifice with the tools necessary for success. We do not need to make this same mistake yet again.

I note that you are both posting from London. It is an excellent town which holds many fond memories for me.
Please stay there. We will fix things here. Those who are able to contribute to the rebuilding will know when to come home.

Happy thoughts

RP

[pr00ne]

Bluewolf,

I just crafted a wonderfully detailed point by point response only to find that I had been bounced out of Pprune and was told to log on, WHY does that happen?

To cut a long story short.......................................


You still seem to be unable to cope with any points of view not coinciding 100% with your own.

41 and 46% of the electorate voting for one party seems to be pretty impressive to me, do you not understand how a parliamentary democracy works?

We had a similar Right Wing zealots in power here for 18 years, we are still suffering from the effects of that sustained attack on the Welfare State you so despise.

What anti-tank guns in production for the British Army in the 80's?
We ionly had the Wombat and the Eytie pack howitzer, what were you building and where?

The A-4K's have gone, the F-16's have gone else where, live with it and move on.

Your standing in the world has not been demeaned one jot by the passing of the ACF, nor has your military capability.

National pride is a pretty wierd rationale for the possesion of a fast jet force, as is the need to familiarise NZ ground forces with fast jet attacks. Do you have any idea how targets are attacked by modern FJ's. They certainly do not scream overhead at 50 feet at 420 knots, which is all the A-4's could do to simulate the current threat.

Fast jets are an increasingly small part of the response to the current threat scenario we face. The RAF, USN, USAF are all reducing fast jet nu,mers to concentrate funds on more appropriate military capabilities.

Thanks for your life story, my background is GD(P) RAF ending up on the mighty Toom in the FGR role, which instantly dates me, followed by Learning Command and then a new life in the real world in Law.

[BlueWolf]

Hmm, yes, well. The LAW-80 in fact, not a gun, but that comment wasn't directed at you.

I find it helpful to craft long responses either in Word or Outlook Express, and then copy and paste them to PPRuNe. I have also been stung by the server before.

New Zealand's primary requirement for a FJ force is to provide for anti-shipping strike capability, with everything else secondary. As such, 50' and 420k is fairly useful.

It appears that we may never agree on welfare; so be it. I will argue the point no further.

"Current threat scenarios" are but one tiny window on the world of military possibilities and likelihoods, and in my opinion, a fairly short sighted and narrow one. Oh for a crystal ball.

I have no intention whatsoever of living with it and moving on. I have every intention of fixing it and then moving on, and that is what I am doing.

At the end of the day, it will not be you who helps to craft and implement the Defence policies of the Parties who will form the next New Zealand Government; it will be me. And that is what I am doing, based on my own judgement, and what I consider to be common sense, and an acceptance of history, and of human nature, and of geopolitical and military reality.

I thank you for your input, and wish you the best.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Isn't New Zealand a member of the Five Powers' Defence Agreement (or it might be arrangement)?

If the answer is yes (which of course it is) then how does this effect the issue? After all the UK commits naval forces to FPDA (always a Type 42 Destroyer) so someone thinks it important.

Isn't FPDA largely to do with air defence?

That incidentally is a genuine question.

[ScienceDoc]

Hmmm...a view from an outsider who is not from New Zealand but who has visited the country numerous times:

If I take a look at the globe and some additional data I see:

1) New Zealand is a country as big as germany but with only as much people as one german state (Baden-Württemberg).

2) It's economy is not that powerful.

3) It's economy is still largely based on export of aggriculteral products.

4) All international travel takes place by air.

5) Most shipping takes place by sea.

6) At the moment New Zealand is dependant on import of crude materials, esspecially oil.

7) Kiwis are a very friendly people which do not like to invade foreign countries and which are quite happy with their situation. This means: They do not want to control the world. Nobody feels threatened by them.

8) Kiwis are so friendly that they even care about lot of people in polynesia. Pretty far away from their three islands (cook islands are defended by NZ, who else?)

So this means:

A) Accessible air- and sea-routes are vital for the country.
B) New Zealand cannot afford an expensive army.
C) New Zealand needs some kind of force projection capability.
D) New Zealand needs to be able to protect harbours and airports.

Unusual Conclusion:

1) Get a small but capable air force with longe range capability. So what would the experts say about 10 F111, 5 B1 and some tankers? Sounds crazy but would that not be a capable compromise?

2) Get some ships capable like the AEGIS class which can be deployed around the islands and which can completely protect their airspace this way.

3) On paper New Zealands needs a big and even peaceful partner who can support them in case that someone really evil powerful attacks them.

4) As Kiwi I wouldn't be too afraid of something evil happening to the country. I would rather think a lot about how the future society should look like and what implication immigration politics do have.

In my opinion this would comply with the Kiwi's peaceful behaviour but still be a pretty good initial threat for an attacker. Like I said, I am neither Kiwi nor military in any way...

Can I now immigrate? ;-)

[ZK-NSJ]

i thought all shipping takes place by sea :}