|
Post by flyjoe180 on Nov 17, 2011 20:23:47 GMT 12
Surely some firepower is better than no firepower ability? A 'high performance' turboprop is a step in the right direction, no?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2011 21:08:45 GMT 12
Exactly and from what I have heard it is a very capable machine.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Nov 17, 2011 22:11:58 GMT 12
''''''''from what I have heard it is a very capable machine '''
Say what.
If you look at history any aircraft can drop a bomb... and very effectively.
At the end of the day it makes absolutely no difference. not an iota.
Wars are never won by capability.. it is all about peoples will. -
You lose the people you lose the war.
I was in Hanoi a few times recently and the American bombing was just shrugged off. All that money, all those bombs, all those lives lost. It was only to impress the Americans back home. The Vietnamese couldn't give a toss. They rejoiced in their victories and they had enough of them.
I can't believe John McCain banged out of an A4 and landed in a lake smack in the middle of town.
The man was an attention getter, obviously born to be a politician.
Anyway the A4 was a nothing machine, the B52 little better. They were totally unsuited to the task in hand.
I have been to many battlefields, admittedly time after the event in most cases. I was in on the other team in Blackhawk down, with the RAF during the Falklands, was in the Texas near Fort Hood during the first Gulf War build-up. Had just left Rwanda before the genocide. Seen the "Aid" effort in Sudan.
As stated earlier, battles can be won with 4x4's, many have been. Machetes are very effective also. A Turboprop with some rockets will do diddly squat. The RNZAF is an inefficient fighting machine and getting worse every year.
We as a country are far too PC and safety conscious. You are never going to win a battle by pussyfooting and dicking about.
Yes, I did my time but I can tell you now I have seen far more action as a civvy than you do sitting on a bar stool in a mess.
I think we can probably just buy a model, paint it up and dream. Many here are at that stage.
Someone on this Forum even mentioned that we had the best fighter pilots in the world, I almost choked on my beer. What year, or time warp, are they locked in ?
It is the politicians and the influence they have over the populace that really matters.
Just remember the media thinks every aircraft is either a Cessna or a Jumbo.
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Nov 17, 2011 23:14:28 GMT 12
''''''''from what I have heard it is a very capable machine ''' Say what. If you look at history any aircraft can drop a bomb... and very effectively. At the end of the day it makes absolutely no difference. not an iota. Wars are never won by capability.. it is all about peoples will. - You lose the people you lose the war. I was in Hanoi a few times recently and the American bombing was just shrugged off. All that money, all those bombs, all those lives lost. It was only to impress the Americans back home. The Vietnamese couldn't give a toss. They rejoiced in their victories and they had enough of them. I can't believe John McCain banged out of an A4 and landed in a lake smack in the middle of town. The man was an attention getter, obviously born to be a politician. Anyway the A4 was a nothing machine, the B52 little better. They were totally unsuited to the task in hand. I have been to many battlefields, admittedly time after the event in most cases. I was in on the other team in Blackhawk down, with the RAF during the Falklands, was in the Texas near Fort Hood during the first Gulf War build-up. Had just left Rwanda before the genocide. Seen the "Aid" effort in Sudan. As stated earlier, battles can be won with 4x4's, many have been. Machetes are very effective also. A Turboprop with some rockets will do diddly squat. The RNZAF is an inefficient fighting machine and getting worse every year. We as a country are far too PC and safety conscious. You are never going to win a battle by pussyfooting and dicking about. Yes, I did my time but I can tell you now I have seen far more action as a civvy than you do sitting on a bar stool in a mess. I think we can probably just buy a model, paint it up and dream. Many here are at that stage. Someone on this Forum even mentioned that we had the best fighter pilots in the world, I almost choked on my beer. What year, or time warp, are they locked in ? It is the politicians and the influence they have over the populace that really matters. Just remember the media thinks every aircraft is either a Cessna or a Jumbo. Your a fountain of happiness mate. Though I do agree with you about politicians and media. There are some ideas I have about politicians but that's called sedition and also somebody would have to fill out a herc load of paper work to meet the requirements of the Resource Management Act We need to build on the capability we have now.We aren't going to get back into the fast jet business.We however can build expertise in other areas, for example in light attack using aircraft like the Super Tucano and the Wildcat helo. With the joint amphib force planned no mention has been made about indigenous air cover or indigenous air attack capability. The pollies reckon that the budget will be back in positive numbers in 2014 - 15 so there is hope of money being not being so tight. A war in the Pacific would scare the pollies and the civvy population into modernising and bring back a air combat capability, but by then its to late. We all know that,so we have to work with what we got. What really annoys me is that I never see the RSA or The RNZAF Assn advocating for the military and putting the deficiencies in the public eye. The armed forces got a lot of goodwill for their work in Christchurch and I for one really appreciated them being here. Election time and all, not once have I seen anything about defence.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Nov 17, 2011 23:41:04 GMT 12
I was with the RAF basically training in preparation for the Third World War. The IRA were a problem but the cold war was well and truly game on.
The Argentine exercise took the RAF by surprise.... You do know how many RAF aircraft actually served during the conflict..
About the best they could do was deploy some Phantoms down there after the event as a show of force.
The Indonesians, Indians, Chinese and whoever else we may perceive to be a threat may not necessarily have the skills but they have something we definitely don't.
Numbers.
We struggle to find a few million to buy an aircraft, those guys will just breed replacements.
I think NZ is on the right track with the Pacific surveillance and peace keeping capabilities, - I am not keen on the idea of a Tri-Service Force though. One thing the RNZAF does have is a proud history and tradition. We lost Wigram, we really don't need to lose the rest of it.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Nov 18, 2011 8:31:41 GMT 12
Monsieur Baron, On the money, the armed forces are merely the cutting edge of society's sword Suggest Nukes might be capability that balances numbers and a capability that can win (and loose) wars. Plague pestilence and War - three things that keep populations down, Nukes have stopped real big major war, drugs in theory plague and we are pressure cooking the food supply with over cultivation. Fundamentally the human condition will always strive to breed with greed. Classically all the way from the pelopennsian wars - only the dead have seen then end of war. Disagree about Vietnam, Giap let loose that they were 45 mins from capitulation in Linebacker 2, Yanks blinked first, but that era opens up a huge can of worms. The non chalonce of the people today was not be the same in 1972. They were bombed back to the stone age. As for the RNZAF being a war fighting organisation.....ahhh no. Hasn't been for a loooooooong time. The best fighter pilots? - at best any A-4 driver is a glorified bomb taxi driver. The A-4 was designed to be a simple robust bomb truck. Even the US Army was looking at them as a CAS capability - simple to operate/repair and real cheap, yeah it could furball real well but so can many bomb taxis after they dump their load, a good radar aircraft optimised for air to air the A-4 (even post kahu) wasn't. What I think people would be commenting on is that the RNZAF due to small size could be overly picky in its selection and training of fast jet crews. A luxury the larger (war fighting) forces wish they had. This training buy is a bad move. Training should be outsourced to the commercial world, mil specific training should occur in aus to help anzac integration thus allowing the RNZAF to be more realistic with its budget and integrate back into society. The tax payer is being gipped by NZDF have ambition well above its ie our economy's budget. (The sinews of war is infinite gold).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2011 15:43:38 GMT 12
I edited a photo of a Super Tucano, without changing the colour scheme, but here it is ;D Just for dreamers like me, but maybe my dreams will come true, who knows... ;D Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2011 16:05:30 GMT 12
And another ;D Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 18, 2011 16:44:14 GMT 12
RNZAF Roundels:
Feet towards the fuselage and the beaks forward
|
|
|
Post by guest on Nov 18, 2011 17:33:46 GMT 12
RNZAF Roundels: Feet towards the fuselage and the beaks forward Which proves it wont fly... Think current training aircraft - keep it in the family - would be my bet.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2011 17:41:15 GMT 12
Yeah i know the Roundels aren't facing the right way but you get what i mean, i just put stuff on there to give people the idea.
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Nov 21, 2011 17:38:15 GMT 12
awol - No one can possibly say there will never be fast jets in the RNZAF again as an absolute becuase we simply do not know, What we can say is currently it doesnt look likely in the near future. 30 - 40 years on is anyones guess but if things with Australia - China - America and just generally unstable SE asian governments continue on their current trend of up gunning (im assuming everyone knows about the US marines moving into Darwin? Interesting isnt it?) I am predicting we will see quite a bit more pressure from Australia to help out in ways more than just moral support.
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Nov 21, 2011 19:13:25 GMT 12
So true the RNZAF RNZN needs stand off maritime strike capability although it seems unlikely in short term, long term there must be some sort of delivery platform in the form of UAV or P8A . PLANN Type blue water carriers proposed just example of force projection in our region in the future . Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Nov 23, 2011 22:35:50 GMT 12
Thank god for the Ozzie AIRFORCE good to see NZDF still gets to keep up date working with strike assets.
|
|
|
Post by shamus on Nov 24, 2011 9:27:38 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2011 13:08:00 GMT 12
I was wondering, if the deal for the F-16's went ahead like it should have, and after numerous upgrades and many years the F-16's were ready to be replaced as well, could we as a nation afford 5th generation jet fighters? I think we can afford 4/4.5th generation fighter but the prices of 5th generation fighters are phenomenal, F-35 is something like 100 million USD and the F-22 is even more I think. Could we actually afford to replace the F-16's when needed? And with that said, was buying the F-16s just delaying the inevitable? Don't get me wrong I am not an Anti Air Force arsehole haha and I think it is important for our country to maintain a strike/defensive capability.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2011 14:00:56 GMT 12
F-35A: US$122 million F-22: US$150 million Are the cost for just one!
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Nov 24, 2011 14:11:46 GMT 12
''''' Don't get me wrong I am not an Anti Air Force arsehole .. haha '''''''
I don't know if you have too many worries there.
The answer to your question is that we can't afford it. Was there ever a point in history when we could afford state of the art machines ?
The Wellingtons would have been... and so too many of the wartime purchases.
Beyond that I am not so sure. Some, like the Strikemaster, were at the very end of their development. I guess you could say the A4 had been in service for over 12 years before NZ ordered them.
I don't think it is the NZ way. We seem content to go the cheaper option and try and go for something tried and proven.... and very much more 'economical'.
I thought we decided that fighters were off the agenda for the foreseeable future. I can't see a role for them at the moment in any defence plan.
The truth is any Defence funding is difficult to procure in these times, all the more so for Capital expenditure.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2011 14:17:15 GMT 12
By wellingtons, are you refering to the Vickers Wellington? and if so were they advanced?
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Nov 24, 2011 14:53:55 GMT 12
By wellingtons, are you refering to the Vickers Wellington? and if so were they advanced? They would of been when they had been ordered. If we were still in the fighter game there would of been cheaper options for a F-16 replacement instead of the F-35. F-18E/F, Gripen and newer F-16s for example. If we still had the F-16s we suppose to of got there probably still would be about 15-20 years of use still in them considering they had near zero hours. They would of been updated no doubt along the way, budget allowing.
|
|