|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jul 8, 2010 17:19:28 GMT 12
And how many of those do you think are serviceable? None of those types pose a serious threat to Australia, especially the way they maintain and operate their aircraft. They may look impressive on paper but they are no match for the RAAF.
|
|
|
|
Post by yak2 on Jul 8, 2010 17:32:40 GMT 12
Having an opinion is one thing, but if you don't know what you are talking about then best to shut up! Perhaps "John" can enlighten us on what qualifies him to be an expert on this subject? Don, when has that ever stopped members making comment on this forum? Do you think those well intended pixies who suggest bringing back the Skyhawks, buying Griffons, Typhoons etc. should shut up, just because they have an opinion. They are clearly not experts, but are entitled to their view in my opinion.  Put another way, I have an opinion as to why the AB's always seem to choke at the WRC. I'm no expert, but I have an opinion. Yours may be different, and I respect you for that  |
|
|
|
Post by johnhoward on Jul 8, 2010 18:21:27 GMT 12
I may come across as very abrubt and ignorant I won't disagree with you on that! Same goes with you my friend. |
|
|
|
Post by yak2 on Jul 8, 2010 18:37:39 GMT 12
Pull yer head in John, and go do your homework |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 8, 2010 19:13:29 GMT 12
Ay, ay, ay... Calm Down!!  Please keep the discussion civil and respectful everyone, there's no need for anyone to fall out or feel unwelcome here. All opinions are welcome, but so long as you don't mind it being challenged by others. |
|
|
|
Post by nige on Jul 8, 2010 19:20:09 GMT 12
Indeed, words of wisdom there Dave!
Especially with those heavies backing you up!
(Mind you if something more explosive is said, can we please see what the next Harry Enfield Red Card will look like - that's and they're soo funny)!
|
|
|
|
Post by johnhoward on Jul 8, 2010 19:34:50 GMT 12
Pull yer head in John, and go do your homework Wake up, because your dreaming. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jul 8, 2010 19:39:16 GMT 12
Ok Ok I think that about does this thread for a while.
I have been here posting for quite a while and think both of you should have a few days away from the forum to calm down, so you can return with a more positive attitude towards all of us here and what we all like to chat about.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnhoward on Jul 8, 2010 19:57:43 GMT 12
Ok Ok I think that about does this thread for a while. I have been here posting for quite a while and think both of you should have a few days away from the forum to calm down, so you can return with a more positive attitude towards all of us here and what we all like to chat about. Who else are to talking to other than me? |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Jul 8, 2010 20:16:01 GMT 12
Its not who is talking but who is reading as well. Play the ball not the man guys: stick to the points of the discussion and leave the ad hominem stuff for the amateurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnhoward on Jul 8, 2010 20:44:09 GMT 12
I stuck to discussion, until old mate skyhawkdon started to be a rude pr*ck.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Jul 8, 2010 23:23:28 GMT 12
Oh my god!! What a debate! Good on you guys!! Don't know who John Howard is, but the way you guys are responding to him makes me believe there is hope for NZ after all!
Of course you can afford a national defence force. Even third world countries have better equipped defence forces than you at the moment.
Of course modern multi-role fighters are an integral part of any defence force. To not have a force projection capability makes everything else seem rather small.
Of course worrying about whether you can afford something in a distant future is no reason to relinquish sovereignty, or to stop existing now.
Of course regional defence capability and alliances are about the most sensible things anyone has suggested for several decades. If the cost is killing the capability, share the cost with someone else!
Of course being dependent on other countries for national defence means you have sacrificed sovereignty, so it is far better to be involved in order to at least have a seat at the table when decisions get made.
All I ask, guys, is that you keep the bright light shining, and you regain your fighter force soon as you can afford it. The day will come, and while you don't have one, your national sovereignty is at risk.
Waiting for an invasion is not the way to keep costs down and threats off the beach. Most countries collapse when the fighting is on their own streets. The best place for a first world country to face their enemies is where their enemies live...so that their country collapses and not yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jul 9, 2010 0:32:13 GMT 12
Geez, that escalated quickly!  Firstly, John, let me start by saying that the Indonesian Air Force is currently not much of a threat to the RAAF; especially when there have been several reports that the Indonesians can't afford any modern air-to-air missiles for their fleet of Sukhois, and that the earlier batch of four Su-27/30 aircraft ordered in 2003 have spent much of their lives grounded because they are incompatible with the TNI-AU air defence network. Also, while your statement about a future RNZAF air combat force being too small to act as much of a deterrent is possibly true, I would suggest that it is certainly better than having no deterrent at all, which is the current situation. Even a small force of 10-20 4th Gen fighter/attack aircraft would make it possible to bloody the nose of an attacker approaching NZ from across the ocean - until larger allied forces come to the country's aid. That might make all the difference to a foreign nation deciding to having a go at New Zealand. And really, just how do you judge the deterence factor of an air combat force? Obviously the combined might of the USAF and USN failed to act as a deterrent to the lunatics behind the terrorist operation that lead to four hijacked airliners causing a great deal of panic, chaos, death and destruction in the USA in Sept 2001 - yet I don't think many people would suggest that it is a waste of time to maintain those huge fleets of USAF and USN fighters and attack aircraft. And anyway, just how many countries in the world would have an air combat force actually capable of seriously repelling an attempted invasion for any length of time - without relying on the military support of allies? While I have never agreed with Clark's rationale for scrapping the RNZAF's air combat force, I do accept that her idea of spending the money saved by that decision, on transport aircraft and helicopters, was a good idea for a small nation such as NZ. Unfortunately, as with most political promises, this has turned out to be far from what actually happened! And in my opinion, the decisions taken so far leave a lot to be desired: upgrading the C-130 fleet has turned into a mess, and too few new helicopters have been ordered to replace the UH-1H in RNZAF service. And as to the RAAF F/A-18As being deployed to Iraq; that particular operation highlighted the pathetic lack of expenditure on proper electronic countermeasures equipment and newer generation targeting pods for the RAAFs Hornets, and how embarrassingly unprepared the RAAF was for modern combat. This lead to the RAAF Hornets being deployed mostly on tanker escort and other secondary missions until the air-to-air and ground-air threat had been suppressed. Of course, this problem has been largely negated during the HUG program, but it does highlight that even Australia has fallen into the "equipped for, but not with" trap, that also affects nations such as Indonesia and New Zealand. |
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jul 9, 2010 8:21:01 GMT 12
I'm done here for a while guys...  |
|
|
|
Post by harvard1041 on Jul 9, 2010 9:20:06 GMT 12
In my opinion, the biggest loss when our politicians got rid of the ACF - was not the loss of A-4s or F-16s per say .... but the capability to operate and maintain Fighters.... they were the 'force' in the organisation.
The RNZAF punched well above its weight because of good well trained fighter pilots and engineers and support people .... all pretty much lost.
While of course if we're going to be involved in this, we'd like to do it with modern equipment - but our politicians really sold the RNZAF and the country down the road with their short sighted cynical decision. Clark et al focussed on this from a long way back... getting rid of the capability and pushed it thru sadly.
The 'debate' shouldn't be about this jet or that jet - this scenario or that scenario - it should be about restoring the capability - getting people trained up to fly, maintain, and support fighters. Good training and well maintained aircraft will usually do much better in reality than more modern equipment only ... saw many an exercise go well for the Kiwis because of well trained pilots and lots of serviceable jets.
The RNZAF A-4 force was well respected for what they did ... and helped NZ have a valid and respected place in Asia.
Don knows exactly what he talks about... keep it up.
Cheers
Hvd1041
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Jul 9, 2010 9:54:55 GMT 12
True words! Well said harvard1041!
Also well said to you C67. Good observations well made.
I'm sure I have made the parallel before, Lord of the Rings was filmed in NZ. Maybe this is a little melodramatic, but can NZ afford to be the little folk living quietly in the Shire quaintly believing all is well whilst the world explodes around them? If you accept the small country analogy, and have the imagination to make the comparisons between real and fictional life, it wasn't that many hobbits who saved the world just by being involved. They weren't very big or very strong, but they were there when it counted.
There weren't enough RNZAF Skyhawks, they weren't fast enough for the combat and missions of their era, they didn't really have enough capability...but they were there. They were always there when it counted. Nations in the Five Power Defence Agreement definitely knew RNZAF Skyhawks were in the order of battle. The capability they brought was proportionate to the size of the country which sent them.
At the end of the day, many of NZ's allies don't actually need help, but the fact they get help means they are more prepared to come wading in when NZ needs them. The opposite is also true. If NZ is not there for their friends, they may find out the hard way who their friends really are if they ever need help. Having something to send is the key. Right now, NZ has nothing to send other than very token ground forces.
Don't stop Don. Your spot is at the vanguard of the debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Jul 9, 2010 19:45:42 GMT 12
It's a shame the politicians can't be as passionate about the issue or we wouldnt be having this conversation at all. Let's blame them. Down with the politicians!
|
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Jul 9, 2010 21:05:23 GMT 12
It seems to me as a taxpayer that important skills and capability went down the gurgler when the ACW was disbanded and that the F16 deal was an excellent one as we look back with hindsight. Perhaps the time to push this hard is when the Defence White Paper eventually comes out. The media have already highlighted the issues with the Herk and P3 upgrades taking out aircraft from an already small fleet of transport and maritime surveillance aircraft. When the whole A4 sale business falls flat on its face I'm certainly going to write a letter to the editor and email MP's reminding them how they F-d up the F16 deal and have continued to screw the RNZAF over since.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jul 10, 2010 14:56:13 GMT 12
I personally think that the idiots on both sides of politics owe it to the people of NZ to reinstate the air combat wing with new aircraft - just to make up for the adsolute clusterf#ck that the disbandment has been.
And don't forget, that the Skyhawks and Macchis are still costing the taxpayers money in operating/storage costs and fees to the likes of Ernst and Young - money that could be being spent on other areas within defence.
As Harvard1041 says, the skills and talent lost when the air combat wing was disbanded has been one of the biggest losses in defence.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Jul 10, 2010 16:20:16 GMT 12
I think they should have just saved themselves 4 years ago when the sale went stale............ I dont know how much we would have saved but considering that we are in the middle of a cost saving review i should think that this is a major point of debate and concern!! I agree with both Harvard1041 and Corsair67 in that the talent and skill lost was the worst of all and i have been told and heard before that the A-4 pilots were seen as the most skilled marine strike force in the Pacific!!
|
|
