RNZAF jets sold!!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You were happy to sell the A4's to the Phillipines in exchange for F16's, but now, it would be morally unethical?
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.
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 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.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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]
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]
Last edited by MOR; 15th Sep 2005 at 18:13.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: South of the border
Age: 53
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt W E Johns
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.
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
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...
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
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
You are elevating ignorance to an art form...
Last edited by MOR; 16th Sep 2005 at 12:27.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: YQLD
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
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."
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.
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.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 16th Sep 2005 at 14:39.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...¬Found=true
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.
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.
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.
...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.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Go Maori Party...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
raho
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Over there now
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Finished polishing my gold bars, I'll need to get on with gold rings on my jacket...
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.
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.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 8th Oct 2005 at 22:39.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: YQLD
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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.
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!
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!
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 9th Oct 2005 at 11:03.