|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 25, 2009 13:57:18 GMT 12
Actually the Royal New Zealand Air Force had around 40 to 50 Radar stations around our coastline by 1942, each monitoring air and sea traffic and relaying every movement back to the RNZAF Headquarters in Wellington (under the old Dominion Museum). There were control rooms exactly like the Battle of Britain style ones on many of the large operational stations, Whenuapai, Ohakea, Waipapakauri, etc. And the radar network was largely NZ designed built - this country was a world leader in it at that time.
We also had one better than the Observer Corps, we had posts all around the cosatline for Navy observers, New Zealand Army Home Defence reguars, and the Home Guard from mid-1940 onwards, all watching the sea and skies. There were numerous scrambles (or 'flaps' in RNZAF parlance) when enemy shipping and suspected shipping and aircraft were sighted too.
So, NZ had exactly what you describe as NZ not having.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 25, 2009 14:21:59 GMT 12
There was a lot of bar talk at Ohakea yesterday on this subject (after the funeral). If it happens it doesn't sound like it will be anything as exotic as F-16s, more likely PC-9s or their new jet trainers. They are also likely to be maintained by a civilian contractor (opportunity for jobs for NZers?). Sounds like they will take over 3 Sqn's hangar once they move to their new one. There is also talk about 42 Sqn moving to Woodbourne.
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Nov 25, 2009 14:33:05 GMT 12
The RSAF don't have PC-9s they have brand new PC-21s (much hotter!).
Ive seen comments elsewhere on another forum that they are thinking of basing T/A-50s here - this is quite wrong as they dont have T/A-50s (yet).
The Skyhawks used for advanced training are currently based in France and these are due for replacement soon by either of the last two contendors in the RSAF advance training competition. The remaining competitors are the Aermacchi M346 and the KAI T/A-50.
In any case I can't see F-16s or F-15s based here. If they base anything here it would be more likely be the winner of the advance training competition or PC-21s (although I dont think they would be moving from Pearce either)
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 25, 2009 14:45:58 GMT 12
It would be good to see an operational squadron back at Woodbourne, that place has become far too civilian lately.
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 25, 2009 14:48:03 GMT 12
;D You may be so bold...and with your own words, phil82 ;D Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. Firstly, we are not talking about a rugby game. We are talking about your nation's survival! Lethargy and apathy are not an excuse in this debate, and they are certainly not a suitable defence against hostility or threats to national security. In today's globalised economy, neither is a broad moat. It's no use hiding away hoping no-one will notice because everyone has already noticed. Looking through rose tinted glases doesn't make your defence forces "niche" either. Even if it did, niche forces are nothing to be proud of. My apologies for being harsh, but somebody has to say, what you have actually gusts up against non-existent and useless in all but a few very specific areas, with national defence not being one of them. For those you claim are "just ignorant", get them to try breaking the law and see if the "I didn't know it was against the law" malarky works with the police! It doesn't work with Defence either. It really is too late to think about defence when somebody has arrived at your door. If your people really don't care I'd say they're when talking about your country. You are right. It's certainly none of my business, but if it were, and if I were in your shoes, I'd take the NZ$1 million and go. BTW, Those great Kiwi Fighter Pilot Aces and heroes may well be turning in their graves with your claim they never existed!! Oh! and another BTW, not putting up a fight, rolling over and giving in is not normally seen as a sign of ignorance. It is a a fairly clear sign of misguided pacificism. Good luck with that!
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 25, 2009 14:48:50 GMT 12
There was a lot of bar talk at Ohakea yesterday on this subject (after the funeral). If it happens it doesn't sound like it will be anything as exotic as F-16s, more likely PC-9s or their new jet trainers. They are also likely to be maintained by a civilian contractor (opportunity for jobs for NZers?). Sounds like they will take over 3 Sqn's hangar once they move to their new one. There is also talk about 42 Sqn moving to Woodbourne. Sounds promising and wont rattle to many cages if it is training. If you were a Singaporean and wanted to train at a place near lots of water, a place that offers a variety of terrain and weather conditions and an accommodating helpful friendly government needing quick cash. How many nations can provide that to the RSAF without too many hassles?
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Nov 25, 2009 15:14:54 GMT 12
It would be good to see an operational squadron back at Woodbourne, that place has become far too civilian lately. Dave, Just sent sid a message in RAAF Pearce to see what he has heard from over there. There seemed to be plenty of room there when i was there, but there was only a few MB 326's operating from there. Now there is a fulll sqn of Hawks which makes the pattern a bit fuller. The sing dollar is looking good against the kiwi dollar, what about against the franc.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 25, 2009 15:46:12 GMT 12
;D They did exist, and I never said they didn't! What the topic was was Air Defence of this country, and none of those pilots made their names in a NZ context because we have never had one! Even the USAF, today, is considering dismantling its air defence set up after 9/11 because of the huge cost of maintaining it. I bet Australia doesn't have pilots sitting in aircraft either.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 25, 2009 15:57:28 GMT 12
Please explain more clearly Colin what you mean that New Zealand has never had an air defence, because the things you listed as the RNZAF not having, they did have.
From 1942 they had No's 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 Squadrons, plus No's 2 and 4 (Fighter) Operational Training Units, plus the Fighter Leaders School and other units flying fighter defence in New Zealand skies. At any given time only around four at most of those squadrons were in the Pacific and the rest were training in and defending New Zealand.
There were permanent fighter stations at Whenuapai, Ardmore, Seagrove. Ohakea, Masterton, and Fairhall, with other fighter strips set up in places like Paraparaumu, Waharoa, Raglan, etc. and fighters regularly used Rongotai as a base and staging point.
As mentioned the RNZAF had radar stations covering all the coastline and ops rooms keeping watch on any enemy that may appear.
We had bombers, dive bombers and other aircraft also patrolling and ready to defend NZ.
So what bit of "air defence" is missing??
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 25, 2009 17:32:55 GMT 12
Thread topic, foreign fighters based in NZ. My point, NZ doesn't have any fighters. Result, NZ becomes subservient to a foreign power who has fighters in your country. Next topic, I believe Air Defence (or whatever you want to call it) in any country is important. This thread is talking about RSAF F16s in Ohakea. Regardless of what NZ has had, what anyone else has or may have, NZ currently has nothing. To maintain token transport and maritime reconnaissance fleets and ignore fast jets is simply wrong. Even the argument either earlier in this thread or on another about how well the RNZAF P3 capability compares with the RAF's lack of Nimrods is probably misguided. The point to draw from that is that one of the larger air forces in the world is scaling back maritime reconnaissance numbers while acqiring a fleet of new aircraft! Not that NZ has done the right thing in continuing with a small force old aircraft! As I have said before, you could actually employ contractors to fly C130s into Afghanistan and get Surveillance Australia to cover the P3 mission. Try finding someone who will fly frontline combat missions as a contractor! The fact you don't have anyone to do it is what is really frightening! Not whether it will ever arise. You have insurance so as to avoid worrying about the disastrous instance coming up. It's that easy. If your house burns down and you are properly insured, you finish up with a new house. If you don't have the insurance you finish up with nothing. RSAF training aircraft is much more viable and sensible. The advanced fast jet training involves armed fast jets, so as with the fighters, I would not advocate that for a defenceless country. I have really said enough on this thread now. Closing down... Good luck!!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 25, 2009 17:41:32 GMT 12
Regardless of what NZ has had, what anyone else has or may have, NZ currently has nothing. That is agreed. But I was arguing Colin's theory that we have never had air defence in New Zealand which is patently wrong. I was not going to sit idly by and allow it to go unchallenged.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 25, 2009 21:21:53 GMT 12
Regardless of what NZ has had, what anyone else has or may have, NZ currently has nothing. That is agreed. But I was arguing Colin's theory that we have never had air defence in New Zealand which is patently wrong. I was not going to sit idly by and allow it to go unchallenged. It's not a theory Dave, it's fact! No matter how many hundreds of aircraft you have sitting on the ground: without any means of detection or direction for them once airborne, what do you have? Air Defence? I think not. You look up any definition you choose on what constitutes an air defence, and tell me how many of the components we have , or have ever had. then I'll accept your challenge!
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Nov 25, 2009 21:51:18 GMT 12
Part of an air defence system: This is the WW2 operations control room at RNZAF Station Waipapakauri - It was linked to Radar stations and observer posts at Pandora (North cape) Ahipara, Kaimaumau, Cable bay Whangaroa and a number of other locations. Deployed on the base were not only Hudsons and Vildebbeste but generally at least one flight of P40s, especially when tensions were high.The aircraft carried radio and Waipapakauri had a very good radio transmitter site able to direct aircraft to incoming targets. That strikes me as being an Air Defence system - unless the definition is being narrowed down to one precise configuration. Debates are easily won if the definition can be tweaked to suit - Just like Richard Pearse being the first to fly...
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 25, 2009 21:58:13 GMT 12
Colin said, "It's not a theory Dave, it's fact! No matter how many hundreds of aircraft you have sitting on the ground: without any means of detection or direction for them once airborne, what do you have? Air Defence? I think not. You look up any definition you choose on what constitutes an air defence, and tell me how many of the components we have , or have ever had. then I'll accept your challenge!"
I am totally baffled by your comments Colin.
As early as 1942... - We HAD a wide radar detection network. - We HAD operations rooms for directing interceptors to the attack. they didn't switch the radar off once the 'enemy' was spotted, surely, they used the radar to direct the fighters via the Ops room as far as I am aware - We HAD the squadrons of fighters and other aircraft capable of meeting the task. - We HAD the experienced aircrew members. - We HAD the experienced groundcrew members. - We HAD numerous anti-aircraft gunners and gun emplacements, especially around our prime targets - We HAD RNZAF, NAVY. ARMY and HOME GUARD personnel keeping a constant watch for enemy activity, as well as the public who reported anything suspicious
New Zealand's airspace WAS well defended.
So which bit are you purporting is missing that means none of this constitutes an air defence? Please answer that.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 25, 2009 22:13:03 GMT 12
Thank you for that excellent photo and info Bruce.
There are two books by Ian Saxon (I think that's his name, maybe Saxby) about the RNZAF radar network. The radar units were NZ built and far in advance of the UK and US ones at the time. These radar stations were all over NZ's coast, not just in the north, though there were less in the far south.
I have also interviewed a lady here in Cambridge who worked in some of the northern and Whenuapai radar sites as part of that air defence system. She was on duty when they actually detected an unknown enemy aircraft north of NZ and the chain of radar stations tracked it. Aircraft were scrambled, but it landed in the sea. It was later suggested it was a Jap submarine's aircraft. It was well north of NZ by hundreds of miles but shouldn't be there.
Our air defence system was so precise that every single NZ and US aircraft in our NZ and Pacific airspace was tracked and recorded at the main ops room in Wellington (under the musuem) though no-oneknew about this at all as it was top secret, being information vital to the enemy. But the WAAF's at that ops HQ knew some of the most vital secrets of NZ's war - where everything was and how serviceable they were, etc. Again, I have interviewed a lady who was a WAAF in that ops room's most secret area.
Even the patrols being done by the Vincents and Baffins out to sea were part of a vital dense network keeping vigil and plotting every ship every day, in the hope that they never encountered an aircraft carrier arriving in our waters.
So, with respect, please do not tell us NZ has nave had an air defence system, because you are totally and utterly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 26, 2009 1:04:54 GMT 12
Colin said, "It's not a theory Dave, it's fact! No matter how many hundreds of aircraft you have sitting on the ground: without any means of detection or direction for them once airborne, what do you have? Air Defence? I think not. You look up any definition you choose on what constitutes an air defence, and tell me how many of the components we have , or have ever had. then I'll accept your challenge!"I am totally baffled by your comments Colin. As early as 1942... - We HAD a wide radar detection network. - We HAD operations rooms for directing interceptors to the attack. they didn't switch the radar off once the 'enemy' was spotted, surely, they used the radar to direct the fighters via the Ops room as far as I am aware - We HAD the squadrons of fighters and other aircraft capable of meeting the task. - We HAD the experienced aircrew members. - We HAD the experienced groundcrew members. - We HAD numerous anti-aircraft gunners and gun emplacements, especially around our prime targets - We HAD RNZAF, NAVY. ARMY and HOME GUARD personnel keeping a constant watch for enemy activity, as well as the public who reported anything suspicious New Zealand's airspace WAS well defended. So which bit are you purporting is missing that means none of this constitutes an air defence? Please answer that. Dave, are there any instances , even in training,of use of this alleged system to detect, track, locate, control and monitor fighter aircraft onto a possible intruder, because I don't agree with you at all that we could do that! "Surely" isn't fact mate, and I don't believe you can show that that happened because it would have required a level of sophistication non-existant in NZ at that time. Had such a system been extant at any stage of the war, then it would have been recorded in detail, and interviewing someone who "worked on radar" doesn't do it. Where is the detail, of a complete functional system been proved? I suspect you want to believe it was there! However, be baffled no more, because this is an extract of a communique from the PM of New Zealand to Washington, and copied to London IN 1942. "The Prime Minister to the New Zealand Minister, Washington Repeated to the High Commissioner for New Zealand in London. March 1942. "20. We possess at the present time in New Zealand and Fiji 30 Hudsons and 24 Airacobras. Otherwise we have no modern aircraft, although we can and would put into the air four squadrons of ‘Vincents’, seven squadrons of ‘Oxfords’, ‘Harvards’ and ‘Moths’ armed to bomb and fight. But recent experience has shown that obsolete aircraft can achieve very little result in the presence of strong enemy air forces. We have eight air warning sets, four of which are unsuitable for detecting the approach of low-flying aircraft." Four radars of indeterminate type, Do Not, comprise a "wide radar network",DO NOT make for air defence, nor do obsolescent aircraft. Read the actual letter from the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who seems not to agree with you! www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-3Doc-c7-26.html
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Nov 26, 2009 7:37:50 GMT 12
I think the reference to Airacobras says a lot about the accuracy of that statement....
There were more than 4 Radar units in Northland alone - modern American Centimetric types, capable of detecting aircraft and shipping at ranges of over 90 Miles (Good for the time) - remember the Americans only had one unit in Hawaii at the time of Pearl Harbour and apalling comms between there and HQ, and few would say that there was no air defence at Pearl Harbour. Chain Home in the UK was obsolete before it even started, but the design was frozen to get it into service. it was actually inferior to the centimetric sets in NZ! Our NZ air defence may not have been tested in combat, but thats not the point. Just because it wasnt a patriot Battery doesnt mean its not air defence! As mentioned earlier, you can prove anything if your definition is narrow enough...
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Nov 26, 2009 7:43:07 GMT 12
Phil, a report of the situation at March 1942 does not prove that the elements that Dave listed as being available in 1942 did not exist in say December 1942. Had such a system been extant at any stage of the war, then it would have been recorded in detail, and interviewing someone who "worked on radar" doesn't do it. That's an interesting assertion.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 26, 2009 8:02:18 GMT 12
[quote author=bruce board=Postwar thread=10304 post=86870 As mentioned earlier, you can prove anything if your definition is narrow enough...
[/quote]
Can't argue with that!
Are you saying the Prime Minister and War cabinet, because he wouldn't have written that communique, were all talking nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Nov 26, 2009 8:13:23 GMT 12
we NEVER had Airacobras - I would have thought the cabinet would know that....
|
|