Kiwi A4s Finally Sold
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ANYWHERE
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by ROLLERSKATE; 15th May 2004 at 12:45.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSI deal
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.
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!
Is anyone closer to the action in the land of the long rugby losing streak...err...sorry, white cloud able to confirm?
Cheers
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.
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!
Is anyone closer to the action in the land of the long rugby losing streak...err...sorry, white cloud able to confirm?
Cheers
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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? ;-)
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? ;-)
Last edited by ScienceDoc; 17th May 2004 at 17:30.
