|
Post by saratoga on Dec 19, 2017 21:54:01 GMT 12
Yep, contractors will cost you at least 30% more than staffing the task yourself.
Whereas a serviceman will often serve for reasons other than just money, the sole purpose of a contractor is to make money.Not to serve.
Most contractors for this sort of task are overseas corporations,who hire big wig lawyers to tangle the conditions up so much that you are generally having to pay them just to be there.
If you actually want something accomplished, back to the lawyers and renegotiate,on their terms, how much more you will pay.
If they stuff up ,you can penalise them,but then you also end up paying them to pay you the penalty,plus 30%.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 19, 2017 21:55:37 GMT 12
the law isn't for the cheapest tender, its for the best value. Lazy negotiators will be easily confused.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 20, 2017 9:25:05 GMT 12
What people have to remember is in order to maintain a top level defence force the country has to have the money to fund it. In the old days New Zealand produced masses of exports that brought in a lot of wealth for the nation, and we had rules in place to stop cheap nasty rubbish flooding our markets. Now we rely on imports from China, most of our best production companies are either gone or they were sold overseas along with their profits, and the only big industries we have left are dairy and tourism. The current government is hell bent against the dairy industry which I can see will cause a lot of issues to come. So the nation has a lot less wealth to spend on necessities, and in the priority list defence is well down the list below health, education, housing, roads, etc. Since the 1990's it's been an ever decreasing spiral for defence and there's no returning to the glory days of the 1960-80's from the current position as far as I can see.
And when we have ministry bureaucrats bungling Navy programmes over and over, wasting billions of dollars in the process, the cause for better funded and equipped defence is not helped. I sometimes wonder if there is a deliberate left wing campaign in the ministry undermining such things as ship purchase (buying the wrong ships for the job over and over), and all the budget blow outs, etc, trying to aid the cause for defence to be made smaller rather than better. The decision to upgrade the Orions rather than replace them was in many ways crazy, and the same goes with the Hercules upgrades. I don't think they have saved any money and now we have 50+ year old orphan aircraft struggling to continue to do their job, when a new fleet could have been purchased.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Dec 20, 2017 17:01:39 GMT 12
"... when a new fleet could have been purchased". ...and for a fraction of today's cost
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Dec 20, 2017 17:39:20 GMT 12
I think this thread should be moved to 'Preserving New Zealand Aviation History',cause it is history.
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Dec 20, 2017 20:03:26 GMT 12
What people have to remember is in order to maintain a top level defence force the country has to have the money to fund it. In the old days New Zealand produced masses of exports that brought in a lot of wealth for the nation, and we had rules in place to stop cheap nasty rubbish flooding our markets. Now we rely on imports from China, most of our best production companies are either gone or they were sold overseas along with their profits, and the only big industries we have left are dairy and tourism. The current government is hell bent against the dairy industry which I can see will cause a lot of issues to come. So the nation has a lot less wealth to spend on necessities, and in the priority list defence is well down the list below health, education, housing, roads, etc. Since the 1990's it's been an ever decreasing spiral for defence and there's no returning to the glory days of the 1960-80's from the current position as far as I can see. I think you are right , the world has indeed changed . With the advent of cheap , global freight , there is now a global ecomomy -- we are kind of stuck with doing what we do best , and buying the rest from overseas . We certainly have to strive to " do our share " defence wise , but I dont think that will include a " top level defence force " . The budgets just wont stretch that far .
|
|
mike123
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 7
|
Post by mike123 on Feb 10, 2018 9:42:41 GMT 12
On the GETS website, I found a tender for the disposal of the BAK 12 Mobile Airfileld Arrestor Systems. I recall discussion on a thread here about the RNZAF arrestor systems when the Singaporean F16s were visiting last year, as an arrestor was in the background of a photo of an F16 at Ohakea. I wonder why these arrestor systems would be disposed of, if there was a chance they could be used by the Singaporeans at Ohakea in the future? "New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) invites tenders for the purchase and removal of two (2) used BAK 12 Mobile Airfield Arrestor Systems (MAAS). The units are driven by a 70hp diesel engine with petrol driven compressor and have integrated lifting hydraulics and a compressed air stake driver. They are fitted with a 1 1/4 inch hook cable and can arrest aircraft up to 60000 lbs (max engagement speed 158 knots), max arrest speed 190 knots (20000 - 40000 lbs AUW), 1200 ft. run out. The units are to be sold as a single lot complete with spares on an ‘as is, where is’ basis." www.gets.govt.nz/NZDF/ExternalTenderDetails.htm?id=9845611
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Feb 10, 2018 9:54:50 GMT 12
Possibly a case of left hand/right hand accounting. Maybe the Singaporeans have mobile arresters?
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 10, 2018 10:04:52 GMT 12
The Singaporeans want a system that is spec'ed for their large, heavy aircraft? Looks like they will handle a F-18F, but not a heavy F-15SG. Therefore making room?
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Feb 11, 2018 12:18:23 GMT 12
Yep, contractors will cost you at least 30% more than staffing the task yourself. Whereas a serviceman will often serve for reasons other than just money, the sole purpose of a contractor is to make money.Not to serve. i think you'll find many of the contractors on RNZAF bases are ex-servicepeople who got sick of the BS that goes with being in uniform. Serving takes many forms. I don't particularly care who turns spanners on bases and I'm not going to prescribe any more noble motive to one over the other. SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Feb 14, 2018 7:39:37 GMT 12
For the BAK12, this is just the mobile system, yes??
The permanent system at Ohakea is the BAK14. After it was installed at Ohakea, we tested it with the A4's. Centerline landings first, then left side of the runway, then right side of the runway, then landings every 2 minutes.
From memory, we managed 6 A4's in 10 minutes. Fully arrested.
Then we moved on to F18 and F111 tests. The BAK14 easily pulled up the F111 at max landing weight.
This was the end of 94/beginning of 95 when I was at SEMS at Ohakea.
I would imagine the BAK14 is still installed and will happily pull up anything Singapore wants to throw at it!
|
|
mike123
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 7
|
Post by mike123 on Feb 14, 2018 15:02:37 GMT 12
For the BAK12, this is just the mobile system, yes?? The permanent system at Ohakea is the BAK14. After it was installed at Ohakea, we tested it with the A4's. Centerline landings first, then left side of the runway, then right side of the runway, then landings every 2 minutes. From memory, we managed 6 A4's in 10 minutes. Fully arrested. Then we moved on to F18 and F111 tests. The BAK14 easily pulled up the F111 at max landing weight. This was the end of 94/beginning of 95 when I was at SEMS at Ohakea. I would imagine the BAK14 is still installed and will happily pull up anything Singapore wants to throw at it! Yes the tender was regarding just the BAK 12 mobile system.
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Feb 15, 2018 16:10:46 GMT 12
And i must add, even though it is off topic, that SEMS at Ohakea was the best posting I had. Mike Cloake was the Sgt, Heath Renall was the Cpl and I was the Tech. We had a heap of fun there!!!
|
|
|
Post by vansvilla on Feb 28, 2018 20:09:01 GMT 12
As did we all in 1972.
|
|
|
Post by eieio on Feb 28, 2018 20:39:26 GMT 12
Dave, not far off the mark I think, to our losses you an add most of our Forest ownership /exports.
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Mar 1, 2018 9:16:39 GMT 12
I sometimes wonder if there is a deliberate left wing campaign in the ministry undermining such things as ship purchase (buying the wrong ships for the job over and over), and all the budget blow outs, etc, trying to aid the cause for defence to be made smaller rather than better. I don't think it's that clandestine or even politically motivated, Dave. Having worked in a Govt Dept you soon realize that bureaucratic management in the public sector doesn't exactly attract the best and brightest. I'd suggest that managers in the ministry are too (self)absorbed with empire building, rampant cronyism and frivolous wasting of tax payers money to be the least bit interested in undermining the NZDF directly.
|
|
|
Post by fishing2day on Mar 1, 2018 13:12:46 GMT 12
What people have to remember is in order to maintain a top level defence force the country has to have the money to fund it. In the old days New Zealand produced masses of exports that brought in a lot of wealth for the nation, and we had rules in place to stop cheap nasty rubbish flooding our markets. Now we rely on imports from China, most of our best production companies are either gone or they were sold overseas along with their profits, and the only big industries we have left are dairy and tourism. The current government is hell bent against the dairy industry which I can see will cause a lot of issues to come. So the nation has a lot less wealth to spend on necessities, and in the priority list defence is well down the list below health, education, housing, roads, etc. Since the 1990's it's been an ever decreasing spiral for defence and there's no returning to the glory days of the 1960-80's from the current position as far as I can see. And when we have ministry bureaucrats bungling Navy programmes over and over, wasting billions of dollars in the process, the cause for better funded and equipped defence is not helped. I sometimes wonder if there is a deliberate left wing campaign in the ministry undermining such things as ship purchase (buying the wrong ships for the job over and over), and all the budget blow outs, etc, trying to aid the cause for defence to be made smaller rather than better. The decision to upgrade the Orions rather than replace them was in many ways crazy, and the same goes with the Hercules upgrades. I don't think they have saved any money and now we have 50+ year old orphan aircraft struggling to continue to do their job, when a new fleet could have been purchased. There is no appetite in the NZ voting public for increasing defense expenditure. Any increase in military spending in wildly unpopular - the public perception is we are a long way from anywhere and are shielded by powerful allies. When you consider there is no conceivable credible scenario for the use of an air combat wing in defense of our home islands and nothing an air combat wing could do overseas that couldn't be done by a better equipped ally, then the case for spending a quarter of your budget on what would be noisy show ponies at Ohakea evaporates. I love aviation and fast jets, but the logic around the disbanding of the combat air wing was correct.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Mar 2, 2018 8:27:00 GMT 12
[There is no appetite in the NZ voting public for increasing defense expenditure. Any increase in military spending in wildly unpopular - the public perception is we are a long way from anywhere and are shielded by powerful allies. When you consider there is no conceivable credible scenario for the use of an air combat wing in defense of our home islands and nothing an air combat wing could do overseas that couldn't be done by a better equipped ally, then the case for spending a quarter of your budget on what would be noisy show ponies at Ohakea evaporates. I love aviation and fast jets, but the logic around the disbanding of the combat air wing was correct. I think you are simply wrong. It is a quite easy sell but no one wants to do it as that would kill all their Chinese donations & might scare people. One day soon the world is going to wake up to the fact that the US simply can't pay back its Treasury securities & will stop buying rather rapidly. This will also kill the PRC's economy & its cheaper of them to have a war than to appease its own people. Nothing there is particularly radical or unexpected but is however typically unspoken. As for powerful allies protecting us observing to the public that not being independent means wee have to bend over and put up with things like the Ozzies transportation of criminals to NZ (Maybe Auckland airport needs a sign that says "welcome to Australias own botany bay") and the fact that they currently treat in NZ citizens in Oz like 3rd world labour. It can be sold to the public but there are better toughs about. There are also other issues impacting defence how defence is viewed such as having some of the most lax voter rules in the world which means may votes don't actually have much invested in NZ (all those students visas, temporary work visa get to vote which is by world standards exceptional), the NZDFs distain of the public and their civilian governance plus a general failure to actually engage with the public in anyway other than dog and pony shows. We still maintain an army in a country surrounded by 1000's of miles of water so clearly there is a substantial spend on illogical capacities. Fast jets are useless for NZ as they simply don't have the range / payload required to achieve the best results long range standoff strike however is critical i.e converted airliners in the class of maritime optimized B52s.
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Mar 2, 2018 9:12:51 GMT 12
There are also other issues impacting defence how defence is viewed such as having some of the most lax voter rules in the world which means may votes don't actually have much invested in NZ (all those students visas, temporary work visa get to vote which is by world standards exceptional) That assertion is not true, here's the rule from Elections.org.nz (my bold)
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Mar 2, 2018 16:47:47 GMT 12
[There is no appetite in the NZ voting public for increasing defense expenditure. Any increase in military spending in wildly unpopular - the public perception is we are a long way from anywhere and are shielded by powerful allies. When you consider there is no conceivable credible scenario for the use of an air combat wing in defense of our home islands and nothing an air combat wing could do overseas that couldn't be done by a better equipped ally, then the case for spending a quarter of your budget on what would be noisy show ponies at Ohakea evaporates. I love aviation and fast jets, but the logic around the disbanding of the combat air wing was correct. I think you are simply wrong. It is a quite easy sell but no one wants to do it as that would kill all their Chinese donations & might scare people. One day soon the world is going to wake up to the fact that the US simply can't pay back its Treasury securities & will stop buying rather rapidly. This will also kill the PRC's economy & its cheaper of them to have a war than to appease its own people. Nothing there is particularly radical or unexpected but is however typically unspoken. As for powerful allies protecting us observing to the public that not being independent means wee have to bend over and put up with things like the Ozzies transportation of criminals to NZ (Maybe Auckland airport needs a sign that says "welcome to Australias own botany bay") and the fact that they currently treat in NZ citizens in Oz like 3rd world labour. It can be sold to the public but there are better toughs about. There are also other issues impacting defence how defence is viewed such as having some of the most lax voter rules in the world which means may votes don't actually have much invested in NZ (all those students visas, temporary work visa get to vote which is by world standards exceptional), the NZDFs distain of the public and their civilian governance plus a general failure to actually engage with the public in anyway other than dog and pony shows. We still maintain an army in a country surrounded by 1000's of miles of water so clearly there is a substantial spend on illogical capacities. Fast jets are useless for NZ as they simply don't have the range / payload required to achieve the best results long range standoff strike however is critical i.e converted airliners in the class of maritime optimized B52s. I wish people would grasp the fact that the value in our defence assets is not simply what they can do based in NZ - presumably based on an assumption their only combat role is to stop an invasion. We have significant regional and, to a lesser degree, global responsibilities which can, and have in the last 20 years, seen the NZDF deploy force components offshore. In these sceanrios we do add value and thats' particularly where our Army comes in. Fast jets won't happen now but they did provide a good back-up for regional partners and deploying to the likes of Oz & S.E.Asia is where their real worth could be realised. So fast jets would be far from useless & our Army is a major asset, and the importance of the RNZN needs no explaining. I get your inference though that we could be setting better priorities.
|
|