ANZUS:
 

KOMAC2:
Not aggressive, not abrupt, I well know NZ's envolvement, and the FRUSTRATIONS beared by those serving,
Please my view is one I guess of over all, In a Nut shell the NZDF has to fight Tooth and bloody nail to get the NZ govt to listen, in saying this AUNTY HELEN is "begining" to understand.
Mr Hill, I think we are on the same page after all!:ok:
Chr's
H/Snort.
PS" KOMAC2, Your efforts and those of your lads & Ladies, are appreciated.
Please convey to all, A HAPPY as can be, CHRISTMAS, and A SAFE ONE.
God bless you all matey!:ok:

Komac2 wrote I can not agree as I do not believe there is any provision in the treaty for one party to unilaterally 'suspend' another.

The United States suspends ANZUS obligations to New Zealand
After consultations with Australia and after negotiations with New Zealand broke down, the United States announced that it was suspending its treaty obligations to New Zealand until United States Navy ships were re-admitted to New Zealand ports, citing that New Zealand was "a friend, but not an ally". The crisis made front-page headlines for weeks in many American newspapers, while many American cabinet members were quoted as expressing a deep sense of betrayal.However, David Lange did not withdraw New Zealand from ANZUS, although his government's policy led to the US's decision to suspend its treaty obligations to New Zealand.
An opinion poll in New Zealand in 1991showed 54% of those sampled preferred to let the treaty lapse rather than accept visits again by nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered vessels. The policy did not become law until 8 June 1987 with the passing of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987, more than two years after the Buchanan was refused entry after the USA refused to declare the presence or absence of nuclear weapons, and a year after the USA suspended its treaty obligations to New Zealand.

from wikipedia

So what you mean is the US suspended itself!

The US tried to impose on NZ an obligation to accept nuclear ships into our harbours, NZ declined to tolerate this imposition on national sovereignity which the US took as a serious afront to its mana and in an effort to save face, or just a fit of picque, kicked over the treaty table!

New Zealand continues to provide military aid to the US every minute of every day, I dont know what we get in return.

BTW, NZ was attacked by the military of another country in July 1985 and the worth of the ANZUS treaty was amply demonstrated by the actions of the US and Australia (to a lesser extent). Now, at what date did the US 'suspend' itself from the treaty with NZ? 1986 IIRC.

OK, back to the subject of Skyhawks.

They are still operational in the Argentinian Air Force (A-4AR, delivered 1995-1999... surplus USMC A-4Ms modernized with a New-Zealand-like APG-66 multimode radar upgrade) and the Brazilian Navy (AF-1, delivered from 1998... modernized ex-Kuwaiti A-4KUs built in 1976-78, and themselves a modified A-4M).

And the AF-1s do operate from the Brazilian carrier Sao Paulo (ex-Foch, French Navy).

Argentine: 32 A-4AR, 4 TA-4AR (two-seat trainers)
Brazil: 20 AF-1, 3 AF-1A (two-seat trainers)

So either nation could buy New Zealand's A-4Ks & TA-4Ks, if they wanted to.

...and if they are allowed to, remember that sale by NZ requires US approval, which does seem to be slow to obtain in this "post-ANZUS" era.:rolleyes:

Should have given them to the Flippers. A meaningful contribution to the war of terror by the kiwis.

A4's would be useful bombing villages in Mindanao and supporting right wing coups.

Moth Balled Yes/No:
 

QUOTE John HILL:...and if they are allowed to, remember that sale by NZ requires US approval, which does seem to be slow to obtain in this "post-ANZUS" era.
With the latest political polls, it looks like we may have a change in Government, still a ways off?
I wonder how long after a change in NZ government it will take to clear the A4's for sale, or maybe even perhaps! "resurect them"::=:=
Out of interest: My old B73 instructor at united was reputed to be a former instructor at Nellis: He rekoned the A4 was the best bit of kit since sliced bread?
Chr's
H/Snort

H/Snort, would we really want them ressurected? They must be near 50 years old and 50 years before that the Sopwith Camel was a front light fighter!

No:
 

No John!: I would not like to see them resurected.
I would like to see a better reformation of our NZDF, together with some compulsory manning legislation, and a reformation of ANZUS::ok:
Chr's
H/Snort.

Does anyone know if there was much concern from the Australian Govt regarding the withdrawral of 2 Sqn from NW? Apparently in the late 80s-early 90s the RAAF was unable to provide enough aircraft-hours to the RAN for fleet workups and trg and that is one of the reasons why the Skyhawks came accross the ditch in the first place.
So what has changed? The RAAF has less aircraft and pilots, the Skyhawks are gone and the RAN is left with a small number of Pel-Air Learjets and Westwinds. This must have lead to less or poorer quality trg for the RAN, so why didn't the Aust Govt consider funding 2 Sqn to stay operational in NW for that purpose or even cosider buying the A/C and employing the Crews?

I cant say I entirely disagree with you H/Snort but our defences forces should be appropriate to our needs and resources.

Anzjdf
 

Australia-NZ-Joint-Defense-Force::)
Do away with the US entirely, I wonder?
Chr's
H/Snort.:)

Well, you do have to go with people you can trust or go it alone.:hmm:

No question though, the appropriate name would be ANZAC, enough has been paid for it we might as well use it!

ANZACs:
 

IT so proudly should be.
No doubt.
Very good point though! who do you trust?
Been enough ANZAC blood spilt, when push comes to shove blood is thicker than water, I do think this is the case with the NZ & Aussie relationship.
Chr's
H/Snort

Skyhawks
 

The BAE Hawk 127s of 79 & 76 SQNs RAAF took over the maritime rent-a-threat role when the A4s left. :cool:

Too much imagination:
 

Can be a bad thing!

When I hear of the huge trading opourtunities with china, I wonder?
Maybe in the interim "yes".

But with a country that has one 5th/ thats 20% of the worlds population:
But only 7% of the worlds fresh water reserves? something does not add up here:

As I say too much imagination "Maybe".

Chr's
H/Snort.

trogan1981
"Does anyone know if there was much concern from the Australian Govt regarding the withdrawral of 2 Sqn from NW? Apparently in the late 80s-early 90s the RAAF was unable to provide enough aircraft-hours to the RAN for fleet workups and trg and that is one of the reasons why the Skyhawks came accross the ditch in the first place.
So what has changed? The RAAF has less aircraft and pilots, the Skyhawks are gone and the RAN is left with a small number of Pel-Air Learjets and Westwinds. This must have lead to less or poorer quality trg for the RAN, so why didn't the Aust Govt consider funding 2 Sqn to stay operational in NW for that purpose or even cosider buying the A/C and employing the Crews?"
I am fairly certain that the Australian Government was picking up most of the expenses involved with 2 squadron RNZAF's basing at NAS Nowra. We were certainly getting the bang for our bucks!!! These guys would do things that the RAAF wouldn't when it came to playing waries in the EAXA of Jervis Bay. Highly skilled pilots with a great attitude. I know the RAN was very sad to see them go, just like they were in 1984.
Heres some pics of RNZAF and RAN A-4's
http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/index.html

H/Snort, the original ANZACs were victim of trust being put in incompetants and it was a mistake that should never be repeated. However if NZ is to be allied with anyone I would prefer Australia and there is no doubt in my mind that they are the world's second best in a great many things and we could find no finer cobbers.:p

Wessex, you might find that the 'chartering' of the A-4s by the Navy/Dept of Defence was chepaer than utilising Hornets or Pigs to do little more than be a 500kt Radar Dot for the most part. Yes, the RAAF did the 'usual' amount of Fleet Suppt, to ensure both parties received the mutually beneficial training etc. RAAF airframe hours have a limit in terms of total utilisation and a yearly 'flog rate', and you wouldn't want your Jet crews doing ONLY fleet support for their 250 or so hours each year. Likewise the Learjets couldn't travel fast enough to represent ASM all of the time, so it was 'prudent' to use some other 'rent-a-threat'. Well done RNZAF.

Second best:
 

I rather doubt it somehow:

Fair dinkum cobbers:

Yep and proud to have a few as so.

Mr Hill the wind will change direction and your tongue will get stuck in your cheek for ever and a day.:p:p:p:p:p:p

Chr's
H/Snort:D

Ok but there are only so many and they have to do LIFT and Nav trg as well with only 33- airframes.
Wessex: Yes they shouldn't have gone in the first place
LJR: I understand the RAAF benifit from this kind of mutual trg. It has been very hard to get aircraft for any training activity in recent years (it may have always been this way-I don't know) and sureley retaining the aircraft would have provided value for money. I can think of plenty of training roles they could fulfil; CAIRS (VERY rare), 16 AD Regt, Dissimilar AC Trg as well as Navy support flight.
Too late now I suppose....http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/h...4_at_Nowra.jpg(RAN OFFICIAL)

Sky Hawks
 

Further to the RAN fleet support task; it does not fall solely to the Hawks. There are the occasional F-111, F/A-18, AP-3 and Kalkara taskings (in the near future there will also be other maritime UAVs and UCAVs).:hmm:

In an Australian perspective.The Kiwis are useful for South Pacific police actions. As long as we put them in place. The American alliance provides access to very high levels of miltary technology, intelligence and training. The Defence relationship between Australia and the US is vital.

Your suggestion would be nothing but a burden on the Australian taxpayer. That is, we officially subsidise the myopic regional defence interests of New Zealand. Where as now, we unofficially do.

For example, if order breaks down in a South Pacific nation due a natural disaster or civil unrest. Australia ( and probably the US ) would provide the bulk of the logistical air and sea capabilties.

Move the scenarios further afield- PNG & the Indonesian archipelago- and the Kiwis are even more 'token'.

The New Zealand air force should be labelled a Police Air Wing. The Navy a coastguard and the army 'peacekeepers'- with a SWAT like SAS capability.

Bludgers. :}

sigh.......


http://www.vreme.com/g/images/443254...ve-heart-2.jpg






thats for the piccy, not the comment...

Don't get too upset komac2, Gnadenburg is an Arstralian, and thus is certain that he has a special place in this world, where might is right.

They are bigger, wealthier, and in this case, arro....... ooops, I meant to say more knowledgeable, than us poor Kiwis.

So, know your place in the order of this world and keep tugging your forelock when you speak of our big neighbours across the Tasman.

Pic
 

Kiwi Chick: I have some nice ones of Kiwi A-4s at flying around NW as well but I have to scan them.

Don't be so sensitive. Just dismissing a ludicrous suggestion Australia should forego the American alliance for a " Joint Australia-NZ Defence force"

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by Australia.You have run down your capabilities in a number of areas- not just the A4.

Depending on servicability rates for your C130's. The Irish Air corps can pack more capability than the RNZAF.

Your air force is an example of political tokenism. Downgrade it to a police air wing and coast guard. It would be cheaper. :)

Well stap me Gnadenburg, it is astonishing what one can learn in these forums, I never knew that the Irish Air Corps packs more capability that the RNZAF.

No point in checking the veracity of your statement, we shall just have to take it as the gospel; yes zur, thankee zur.

Did anyone say that? A strengthened ANZAC relationship would not require Australia to give up its relationship with the US.

For NZ's part, our dealings with the US should be in an environment of mutual respect. If Australia wishes to deal with the US differently then they are free to do so.

Sorry John. It was suggested we do away with our US alliance.

And be replaced by some type of combined, inter-operable Australian & New Zealand defence force.

Laugh! Cunning ploy though. You probably want us to foot the bill for the replacement of all that block obsolescence.

The steely eyed Kiwi fighting man:

http://www.airforce.mil.nz/about-us/band/default.htm

Gnadenburg's Horse:
 

Matey it is TOO big for you.
Quote:
Australia-NZ-Joint-Defense-Force:
Do away with the US entirely, I wonder? it was my thought/Q, see the Question mark??????
It concerns me with what I see as the US big gun theory, "my gun is bigger than yours! do as I say"
Aussie/NZ/US have been friends for a good many years.
[SIZE="5"]QUOTE your statement:Your air force (Inset NZDF) is an example of political tokenism.
You are correct absolutely, this has been the theme of my comments to the thread, but quite frankly matey, and perhaps you didn't intend it, but I find your statement just a tad disrespectful to those that have gone before us in a very proud tradition.
Yes we have a bunch of F:mad:wits, running NZ at present, you now have your turn at experiencing the same :
Bearing in mind we just had a chap awarded the VC< and deseve it he F---ing well does.
People are still prepared to die in the world of "political tokenism". and I salute them every man and woman envolved::ok:
Chr's
H/Snort

They are/were probably the best maintained A4's in the world, and their avionics fit is still pretty much 'state of the art' - but there is no-one left to fly them, let alone conduct any form of operations.

What???

What do you mean "noone left to fly them?!" :confused:

I know someone who would probably jump back in it tomorrow, given half the chance!!

Maybe after a touch of maintenance :)

Hahaha... possibly! :}


Like unwrapping all that Glad Wrap. I don't think you'd want to use a Stanley Knife.

The Kiwis need some air capability to be sure, but to suggest that the Aussies and the US wouldn't step in to help if something no **** happens is silly. Do you really think we'd (the US and AS) stand by and let's say the Chinese swarm and take your island? Not a chance in hell. Now pirates and local terrorists? That's a different story. The Kiwis should focus on counter-terrorist type capabilities, and maintain friendly relations with nations that can provide big-war capability. Seriously, what does a Skyhawk with an F-16 radar give you?

Whatever, I'm just a helo driver, what do I know?

Exactly! The last time terrorists came here they arrived in a sail boat, we had Skyhawks then but I dont recall they did much to stop them. P3s however tracked them out of the area (but thats another story).

Watch it, John


That be my plane you're talking about now.... ;)

Errr.... righteo then.. you mean the A4 or the P3?:)