Kiwi A4s Finally Sold
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: South of the border
Age: 53
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Nixor ut Ledo
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a Beaut of a State
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of being controversial.......perhaps it would have been better had NZ opted in to the Australian Federation
On second thoughts that might have meant that Hairy Helen the Melon might have been in our Parliament
On second thoughts that might have meant that Hairy Helen the Melon might have been in our Parliament
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ANYWHERE
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by ROLLERSKATE; 13th May 2004 at 12:04.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?
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?
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For God's sake pr00ne, pull your head out of your ar$e.
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
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.
Is there any serious possibility of any Govt in NZ being able to afford to resurrect the Air Combat Force?
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
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: South of the border
Age: 53
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
-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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiwi Skyhawks
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.
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.
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!
You're not a quasi pinko etc etc....you're just ignorant.
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.
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!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Dave Martin; 15th May 2004 at 10:00.