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.