|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 8, 2007 13:55:23 GMT 12
Yes, I know, but by air is also over the sea. NZ needs to protect its airspace as well as shipping lanes.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Mar 8, 2007 13:57:58 GMT 12
[ That is why the US and Australia is so concerned about the growing military power of others in the region. You don't see Aussie reducing their combat capability like NZ. On the contrary they are greatly enhancing it. One of us has got it wrong... history will prove who was right and my money is on Australia! Don While I agree 100% that well balanced force must have some form of strike component,(F-16's would still be perfect for the RNZAF IMHO),it's a bit of furphy to say that the Australia or the US are concerned at the growing military power in the region. Indonesia is not and has never really been a threat. (it's more likely to implode). Tis may a be a line pushed by the armchair generals, and politicians. But I don’t think it has and real basis in fact The only people who seriously think that China and India are going to come and attack us with Sqn's of Cruise missile armed Tu-22,s escorted by Su-30's are the same loons who would rather us upgrade the F-111's and buy F-22's. We’re more likely to be allies with the Indians (Boeing pushing them Super Hornets as well) that be fighting them. AS for china, well if the west goes to war with them the worlds economy will grind to halt. Although I do concede that the possibly exists, particularly if for some reason their economic boom comes to a screaming halt, or the population wants democracy. But one article I read recently said people in China are more interested in owning homes, mobile phones etc than democracy. The real reason for the Rhino buy is that the JSF is going to slip right, probably by a bit and the Hornets force would (in the RAAF's mind ) provide enough strike power. The Rhino offers a fallback position should (when) JSF, particularly the later blocks slip further , plus it allows the RAAF to get rid off the pigs (which cost around 1 bill a year to keep flying). The plan was always to retire the F-111’s in 2010 ish and if the JSF stayed on schedule the legacy hornet would carry the load until then. The ADF in general have made some good purchase decision lately, eg the NH-90 and C-17. But what is needed is more money for those non sexy platforms like more maritime Helicopters (or decisions to be made on upgrades etc), Transport aircraft (more C-17’s, upgrade C-130H’s for the Special Forces Caribou replacement), More Chinooks, A LUH type helicopter (EC-145/bell 412 size), fast track of the HALE/MALE UAV. These platforms are actually deployed on operations today. To summarize I don’t see an external threat to Australia developing in the next 10-20 years. We’re more likely to get hit in a London Bombing type attack (Thankfully I don’t live in Sydney). Worse case would some NBC type attack on a major city. The ADF are spending more money here but I reckon they should spend more. While we (Aussie Hat on here) do need a credible Air Combat Force we also need to keep the likely threats in perspective. Disclaimer: I work in the ADF Rotary wing world and have gone over to the dark side :-). I’m looking forward to a new training helicopter :-). Sorry for the long post
|
|
|
Post by dav3469 on Mar 8, 2007 15:02:48 GMT 12
Yes, I know, but by air is also over the sea. NZ needs to protect its airspace as well as shipping lanes. "Over here" the Mexican Navy is supposed to be purchasing about a half-dozen SU-27's (the Gripen was also shortlisted but not chosen) to maintain at least some level of air combat capability to cover themselves with a least some form of intercept capability among other uses (the drug trade would be one, patrol and interdiction, limited maritime strike). Doesn't even a "limited" capability like this make sense to the politicians in New Zealand? (I admit i am still learing the political climate there via this forum). Also, given what happened to the Air Combat Force, is there any real possibility that the politicians could try to "get rid of" other major portions of the military there? Thanks for any explanations.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Mar 8, 2007 15:48:30 GMT 12
Unfortunately the country appears to be lead by someone who seems to think that all people are nice and that nothing terrible will ever happen to NZ while she's in charge. I bet she hasn't removed the fire extinguishers and smoke alarms from her office in the Beehive even though they're never been needed so far........!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 8, 2007 17:13:27 GMT 12
Dave, apart from the Strike Wing, the RNZAF has lost several vital components in recent years. Basically it stared in 1992 when the Government (National, not the current Labour Party) decided to close and give away our most important base, RNZAF Base Wigram, Christchurch. This finally occurred in 1995.
Also in 1993 we lost NAATS, which was the school where Navigators and Air Electronics Opertors learned thier trade, With this, NZ lost a martime survellance capability as their F-27 Friendships were retired. The training was farmed out to the RAAF to do.
In the late 1990's the Government then decided to retire the No. 42 Squadron Andovers early, which were multi-role aircraft. They were used as twin-engine trainers, maritime surveillance, troop movement, cargo haulage, disaster relief work all over NZ and the Pacific, ailiners on the SATS route, VIP transport for dignitaries, and much more. These were not replaced with anything of anywhere near the capability. Instead eventually the RNZAF leased some Super King Airs, which are nowhere near as capable but are used as pilot trainers and I guess look good for VIP transport.
As well as the loss of Wigram this Govt now plans to close our most important base that's left, Whenuapai, within the next few years. It's the most strategic base there is, but the ch-ching of dollar signs in politicians eyes as selling the land for real estate is too big a temptation. So we'll be left with two bases, one of which is virtually civilian run.
The RNZAF also laid off lots of people and declared several trades to be defunct, farming their roles out to civil contractors. That's a loss of expertise and innovation that has now bitten them squarely on the bum and some of the canned trades have been reactivated, while other trades that were never canned are desperately short of people. The current RNZAF administration is trying to claw back some of what has been lost but it's an uphill battle.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 8, 2007 20:06:21 GMT 12
Dave, I'm afraid I'm going to disagree! If I, as a Staff Officer, had been presented with the facts as they were, I would have closed Te=Rapa years before it was, and Wigram too. Wigram as a base was long past it's use as a modern facility and, as has been proven since, there was nothing done at Wigram which couldn't be done more economically at Woodbourne. Wigram was bleeding money, and given the air force's first priority is flying hours, that money could be put to better use and was. Te Rapa, was a waste of space! There was nothing at Te Rapa that couldn't have been more efiiciently held at operational bases, and that's what happened.
Likewise, it was extremely uneconomic for the RNZAF to continue to have a training facility for the one or two Navigators it produced every year. Farming it out to Australia, or Canada, was by far the most common-sense method when you are under pressure to save money while maintaining flying allocations.
The Andovers were second-hand when we bought them and believe me they were well-used! We nevertheless ran them for the best part of 25 years, which is a good run in anyone's book. It's arguable that a replacement should have been bought, but you have to ask, is anything the Andovers did not been done? The Andover was not a strategic transport, it was tactical. I went on one to Nowra and it couldn't fly the Tasman without a huge additional fuel tank in the fuselage next to the six passengers!
It is true that may trades have been civilianised, but that is true of many of the world's air forces and not just ours. It's the reality of the 'peace-dividend'. I know for a fact that many of those trades were extremely difficult to man and it was a constant struggle to get people into trades which were so small numerically that there was virtually no career structure. Contracting out jobs which are not "core" military, like Mess Catering and stewarding, has seen no loss of efficiency, and for sure it's cheaper to run because all the costs are known in advance.
For the record, the USAF, with all its wealth, has closed dozens of bases, and so have the RAF. The RAF manpower has been savaged over recent years, and will soon be down to about 38,ooo. It too, has civilianised many trades and services; even Initial Flying Training uses civilian instructors. The run-down has proved benificial to us, with 71 ex-RAF people recruited, and a lot more to come this year.
As someone who possibly saw the very best years of the RAF and RNZAF as a 'family' with everything done in-house, it's a radical new world out there, but then nothing ever stays the same does it?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 8, 2007 21:42:34 GMT 12
Colin, I fully agree about Te Rapa, it was obsolete as soon as the war finished. It's only purpose was a place to store Suppliers.
Wigram was still a valuable asset to the RNZAF as far as I see it, moreso that Woodbourne any day. They should have sold Woody to the grape growers rather than giving away a top base. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
The Andovers were indeed old, nowhere near as old as our Hercs, Orions, helicopters, etc and all with fairly low hours by comparison - and the fact that many are still working for civvie otfits in tinpot countries where they no doubt won't be looked after and loved half as much shows they had a lot of life left in them.
I'm not that concerned about the other Air Forces despite yes they are following the same trends. It's just Dave asked if we might lose more, and I said the RNZAF has been downscaling it's capabilites for a long time and finally realised they've cocked up and are back peddling to try to stop the rot.
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Mar 9, 2007 6:07:05 GMT 12
Looking at regional stability and engagement it is ironic that the most ideal platform for a small country was the A-4. It saved the country money in that we got nearly all the potentially required roles in one aircraft. Did NZ have to buy a dedicted maritime strike aircraft? or CAS? Comments about Indonesia are not to be unstated as chest beating rhetoric, although they managed to reign in the military. RAAF Airpower played into the minds of human decision making. My concern about the drawdown on the RNZAF in general is the impact on cricial mass of personell and thus skills and thus safety and effectiveness. The Government has a poor understanding on aviation in general let alone military aviation. Treating it as some academic toy is very costly in the long run. Although it is obvious that the NZDF is more joint from a perspective of organisational culture (especially with the younger generation of officers coming through) it is less joint in its ability to co-ordinate fires and effects operationally that it has been for some time. Ironicall one of the bis of glue that worked across the spectrum was fast air. When it comes down to it the only two roles that fast air needs o get right are maritime strike and CAS, all else is icing on the cake.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 10, 2007 11:22:11 GMT 12
The A4s would have been a graet asset in CAS in the opening stage of the Timor landings, not least because they could drop bombs a lot more accurately than the RAAF F/A 18s can.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Mar 10, 2007 16:37:46 GMT 12
Face the facts, the A4's are going to be reduced to scrap, maybe a few in musuems if they are lucky. We ar not going to get F16's in any time soon.
Nobody wants the 339's or they would have been sold by now. Lets just use them before they start costing us tax payers too much to bring them back on to the flight line. Yes i know they are flying them now and then but ther ewill be a stage where the govt will say, this is costing too much, turn em into tui cans.
What was 14 sqn's operating budget per year, the same as getting rid of a few dead wood Group Captains, plus they might be able to run on a bio fuel mixture now.
|
|