I still can not see the leaders in Wellington changing direction. The "Best" we can hope for out of this review is 5 new Hercules within 10 tens and a new advanced multi engined trainer. The rest is history...I had and still do hope the macchis could play a role but the Defence Minister has pretty much ruled that out in the past.
Why do you say 5 Hercules? Do you know about 40 Sqd tasking tempo's and what of tasking tempo projections post 2015-2020? I think you are talking nonesense if that is all we are going to get from the Defence White paper - which will outline policy and procurement plans 2010-2035.
Yogi all good points you make...but I live in the real world and the leaders in Wellington are never going that way...I think in your hearts you know this full well. This country will only be invovled in low level peacekeeping,fisheries patrol and search and rescue and thats not going to change. I can see not too far away the job of the Orions going to a private civilian contractor with an off the shelf platform like a Q300.And in future years the ANZAC frigates not been replaced at all. I am only pointing out what is clearly going to happen,the days gone by are just that and the future is going to be far differant. Its the people in Wellington who control this not me and both main parties are not big defence advocates.
Bean, I think what we are trying to say is that we may not have a choice as to what clashes our defence forces are involved in. The orions will not be replaced they are in the middle of a $300 million upgrade. They will however probably be augmented with extra shorter range surveillence aircraft (i've been lead to believe there is a capability gap with the orions? perhaps i'm wrong, someone please correct me if I am).
The anzac frigates will definitely be replaced when the time comes, in 20 years or so, and like has already been stated we are an island nation, we will never be without some naval assets it would be like an open invitation to all of asia to rape our fish stocks with impunity. A totally moronic statement I have to say.
You seem to remark about times gone by alot, I have no idea why, we are not sitting here lamenting about our fine lost airforce. We are talking about how the future is most likely going to be and trying to explain to you where it went wrong and showing screeds of justifying facts to you in support of regaining strike capability, yet you continue to totally ignore all of this information. Now you are not saying YOU dont think we need an ACF, you are saying the pollies will never bring it back, well how do you know? We are not saying they are, we are saying they SHOULD and WHY, what a total cop out, stick to your guns at least.
F.Y.I Public opinion and outright need drives policy and the pollies will always do whatever is in their best interest.
With the Hercules we only have five now and that number has been fine since 1965 and I see no reason they would replace with more or less. In saying that they did replace 19 helicopters with 13 so who truely knows,and it is all wishful saying at best. We know there will some form of advanced multi engine trainer hopefully one with a rear ramp....it would be my guess that this aircraft could be an off the shelf type,from a cost saving point of view a Q300 would be ideal as it could be serviced by Air Nelson,the bad news is the Q300 isno longer in production only the 80 seater Q400. Only time will tell what if any thing happens but dont hold out for much.
All is good and its great to have such views on this subject. All the military might in the world never stopped the 9/11 attacks and nor has the rash decision to invade another country by the US paid any dividends...just like Vietnam this will be another embarrissing and costly misadventure and you can add Iraq to that list aswell. We as a country need to focus as I have said on small peacekeeping issues,fisheries patrol,transport and search and rescue. You guys we have more chance in the next few years of a major earth quake or volcanic eruption and no Orion or fast jet squadron will be of any use in that situation....get real. The past Government was on track...and sorry guys but this one will not change direction either...so I guess if you not happy go live somewhere else.
Given that we in the UK RAF are currently under the possible SDSR axe I sympathise.... By the way if the guy who carped about harking at times past read a book called Right of the Line by John Terraine he would see that sometimes reviewing the past and actually learning for it (which Governments of all colours dont seem to do) is a useful exercise.
In remembrance of Sgt Edgar Harvey who died in December 1942 with the rest of the crew.
so I guess if you not happy go live somewhere else.
This "loyal patriot" is telling you all to leave! IE: He just wants you Kiwis to give up!! At least I suggested you take US$1 million each off the yanks before you go!
The thing is, by your responses you are all proving you have not sold out...only he has...so is he a wind up? Did you guys plant him so I can abuse you more?
The Kiwi fighter pilots I have met all over the world in other people's air forces are all first rate and simply waiting for the opportunity to come home. They have only left because you let yourselves be talked down to by "sirbeanliike" REMFs, and they don't like it.
As I have said before, the options are stark. Give up and leave like sirbean advocates (from an apallingly disloyal and disrespectful position), or spend the money and become a country again.
Sir Bean – as Nige pointed out we do all those things. Peacekeeping is done under UNSC Chapter VI mandates, however due to the growing instability throughout our region and the world in general, UNSC mandates under Chapter VII have been more and more frequent and over the next 25 years the timeframe that this White Paper covers are more and more likely. They are called peace enforcement operations. What you essentially fail to understand is that UNSC mandates require a spectrum of contingencies that have to be planned for and appropriate capabilities sought to achieve it. All this UNSC stuff might seem very unsexy but it fundamentally underpins what a defence force such as New Zealand is all about.
The responsible approach is for a country like New Zealand to have a majority of capabilities to achieve all those good things that you want and a minority of capabilities that are combat capable. In our case it means the ability to deploy an infantry battalion component capable of operating in a UNSC Chp VII environment, a Maritime capability capable of operating at Chp VII which means in our case long range surface combatants and an air component capable of operating at the same Chp VII environment. That is why many of us realise that we have at present and in the years ahead a requirement for at least a second tier fixed wing multi-role air combat capability. Many of the people here also know the dire repercussions of what can happen to this wonderful country by not having such a capability. You need to understand that people like myself and most people here on Daves great website do not want F-22’s, Eurofighters, aircraft carriers, submarines, and flash helicopter gunships. What people like myself want is people like yourself and other New Zealanders is to understand a little of the complexity, capability requirements, and the rationale of what a practical and appropriate defence force requires. I sense that deep down Sir Bean, you know (if you are an intelligent person and not some ideolog) that maybe you are now doubting your original perceptions. But unlike the others I don’t want you to Foxtrot Oscar. I want you to stay and school yourself up. I want you to learn something and the penny eventually to drop.
Besides Sir Bean which one of these guys represents your views?
Post by kiwiscanfly on Aug 29, 2010 0:57:10 GMT 12
Dear Mr Bean
I am currently living in Hong Kong and would just like to ask were your idea of not needing a ACF comes from as well as your view that seem to illustrate a region that is stable and has no risk of escalated conflict........... considering that from HONG KONG I can see military coups in Fiji, political and social unrest in Thailand and the Philippines both homes to radical terrorist groups with corrupt well armed unstable governments, Indonesia which as we know has had a small effect on us........cough cough "East Timor" cough, and to add to the list I had posted previously on this thread an article showing an overall increase in spending on defense right over the South Asia and Pacific region. Opp's wait I forgot the 100 small Spratly islands in the south china sea being contested by china and their ever growing navy claiming they have a right to these islands because of natural resources as well as the Paracel Islands!!!! and just one last thing Internal conflict in Malaysia. So do tell me Mr Bean what part of this is stable and presents no threat to NZ interest and regional stability?? And before you come back with telling me that i am lying or exaggerating look up all that i have just mentioned and in some cases you may be shocked how bad it is.
(would just like to add that I watch 8 bodies being unloaded from a plane that were killed in a bus hijacking in Philippines, one of the survivors lives here in my local town not a direct threat to NZ but an example of a ever growing unstable region.)
Thanks guys for your imput I am as always impressed with your comments. I have only stated how I feel the Government will go and that is they will not re-equipp an Air Combat Force this is how I see it. New Zealand has an MMP electrol system and the current Government can govern without the need of another parties support....however as history has shown New Zealand voters after two terms get sick of those in power and vote for change during this period political parties to gain power need to "do deal"in order to regain or hold power and during these deals often there is a large amount of closed door dealing called "giving". This current Government are not silly and show very good understanding of MMP with deals done with a range of parties including the Greens....this ensures that when the public get sick of them(and they will)they have partners in crime they can do a deal with to hold power.The opposition also have this ability to play these cards. What I am saying is that to re-activate an Air Combat Force would be a major turn of policy and direction the same goes with a major Defence spend up and in the corridores of power where behind closed doors the power brokers do the business I dont see a lot of support for this with other political parties who do deals to their advantage(and their supporters)to support the Government.This is all the more important when numbers get tight and watch this over the next few years and you will see this happen and when it does the Government will do what has to be done in order to stay in power. I am only saying that under an MMP system where Government need to rely on other parties to Govern this(an Air Combat Force) would be regarded as untenible and "death"to their future in the halls of power. A spend up in Defence in New Zealand is over due in certain areas and as I have said I am not against this,but it will be a very hard sell area under an MMP system.There needs to be public debate...however I doubt thiswill ever happen and given the current world wide recession any Defence Force spending needs to be justified tenfold to the taxpayers and would most likely come out the expense to other areas of the defence force with trade offs(again power brokering). Back when I first posted on here I stated that I hope the White Paper review will see the Macchis re-instated as an advanced trainer with the core duty of offering the army /navy fast jet training an area they lack training in right now. The Macchis are still airworthy and still have qualified pilots and groundcrew to man them,and we own them out right.It's a waste of taxpayer money to dream of the "sale that will never come"when they are still costing us money just sitting there.I see no reason for these not to be put back into service,I also see no public dissatisfaction or political back lash from this either as the Macchi is not regarded as an out and out fighter jet. However if you were to try and buy a fleet of second hand multi role fighters the reaction would be far differant and this would merely come down to sheer costs. The public(voters)like what benefits them in the pocket...its the touchy feely thing that people vote on and a squadron of fighter aircraft(lease or outright buy)is not a vote winner. However the Macchis are not an outright buy or lease as we own them,so its a soft sell as they are only regarded as a trainer of limited use,but there training value to all three services would be immeaurable in terms value. To simply have an asset sitting there when everyone knows full well no sale will ever happen is tax payer waste in Defence. I am also dead against up grading the Hercules they needed replacement with new aircraft...jeepers how many people upgrade there 1965 cars! Again smart decisions not silly ones. My points may churn people up but its the sell factor that Governments look at to voters and the back up partners.
Grow up yogi I said we dont need an Air Combat Force yes....its because the way our political system is that will not allow it...face it....its not a vote winner at all. However getting the Macchis back on line is a soft sell....and if you put your glasses on you will see I have always said yes to getting the Macchis back....just understand that a bunch of multi role fighters will never be in this country again. The political environment is not such that will allow it.
grow up? Get a life mate, we all already know its not a vote winner, I even said in one of my previous posts public opinion and outright need drives policy, why do you think I put that? we agree about the macchis, the macchis was not what I was getting at, it was the need for an ACF. You said initially we dont need an acf, now you are saying it doesnt matter anyway because the pollies wont allow it, i.e you keep changing your tune rather than directly challenging peoples points on why an ACF is needed.
Your argument has been totally destroyed by a dozen individuals and now all you are doing is trolling for a reaction and this will be the last I give.