|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 25, 2016 15:08:26 GMT 12
I have no issue with them changing the male-specific job titles to neutral titles, it makes sense and should have been done way back as soon as women were allowed into those trades. I also have no idea why the health budget has been brought up. These days the hospitals are FAR better run then ten years ago, and they have far more sophisticated equipment now than ever before, and they have way better results than they used to, plus much shorter waiting lists. I'm happy to see all this funded. There are other ways to fund defence than to take money from health. I was making a general comment concerning how health care can consume ever increasing levels of funding while the NZDF is underfunded. I wasn't calling for cuts in health care spending to fund the NZDF. Coming back to the topic. I wouldn't mind the change in job titles if it struck me as a serious effort to tackle issues around recruitment and retention. Just how does the NZDF compete for talent coming out of high schools or higher education? Unless you provide NZDF housing in the likes of Auckland how can you expect retain members of the NZDF?
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 25, 2016 13:21:12 GMT 12
Granted I am guy. But I can't fathom how the change will make much difference to the number of women who will enlist in the NZDF. Dave , like you for the same reason I was puzzled by the reference to Rifleman. All I will say is I get mad as hell when the NZDF is left grossly underfunded and is resorting to gender neutral job titles. Meanwhile health care is a gigantic sink hole for tax payer $$.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 28, 2016 21:17:57 GMT 12
I thought the Australian Gov't was broke! $A50B is a huge amount of money but this is just one of many major defence procurement programmes they have running. Makes NZ look pretty insignificant by comparison. I wonder what the Aussies know that we don't?! Well from memory the first of the new subs won't enter service until around 2030. I would think bringing the timeline forward 5 years would be a smart idea. Why spend money on upgrading the ageing Collins Class Submarines? In short the potential of a conflict in Asia can only be ignored by the deluded. Eventually the lala land Helen Clark and John Key will come back to haunt us. Subs provided a effective conventional deterrent , intel gathering capabilities and combat capabilities. The importance of this to NZ Security shouldn't be overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 28, 2016 21:00:13 GMT 12
IMO a law change is needed. If you build a home in a area zoned near a existing airport commercial or military you don't have the right to complain.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 17, 2016 18:26:08 GMT 12
Good (free) training for the ship's air defence systems and operators! Our A-4s flew lower and closer to warships than that. Good point. I think this is a non event. I do have my share of concerns about Putin's expansionists policies but that is for another time.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 15, 2016 0:20:01 GMT 12
I hear the Navy is in a very sorry state manning wise. A lot of that is to do with the cost of living in Auckland, especially housing on the North Shore. The RNZAF is the same out at Whenuapai, they are haemorrhaging people and no one wants to be posted to the place. They are now direct posting tech trades to 6, 40 and 5 Sqns... a very sad state of affairs. The married quarter policy changes (kicking people out after 5 years) has a lot to do with both services manning problems in Auckland. But if you really want to go to the root cause of it, blame the politicians and their chronic underfunding of defence over many, many years, both Labour and National. When Labour bought all these ships it was pointed out that the Navy didn't have the crews to man them and wouldn't be able to unless operational budgets were increased. Same with the LAVs. All great Labour procurement decisions. I think you have hit the nail on the head. Gross levels of under funding and terrible procurement decisions are coming back to bite the RNZN and the government hard. The RN has had the same kind of experiences over the last 6 years. I reckon Brownlee's comments are clearing the way for RNZN to lose OPV's in favor of unmanned vehicles. Instead of unmanned vehicles being a useful addition to the RNZAF/RNZN they will be a way of squeezing more cutbacks out of the defence budget. I suspect the reason the 2015 Defence White Paper was delayed is because people in the defence establishment have finally had the guts to stand up to worthless politicians and their loony ideas.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 8, 2016 14:48:59 GMT 12
I just hope that the serving soldiers and their families don't feel the sting of post quake housing costs to badly. Paying market rentals or having a mortgage may wipe out the advantage of being in The Greater Christchurch Area.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 1, 2016 15:44:49 GMT 12
Maybe we should just keep a pile of letters of marque on hand, that way we will just have the pirates on our side (and its cheap). I fancy a career change.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 1, 2016 15:43:36 GMT 12
Do oil tankers require escort from frigates at the moment? If so, why? And if that is the case why could the smaller patrol craft I suggested not do it?? Not right at the moment. I don't find it difficult to envision otherwise if events in say the South China Sea were to take a unexpected turn. As for smaller patrol craft I feel the matter deserves more attention. I am dumbfounded as to why anybody didn't think it was a good idea for the RNZN's OPV to have MCW and ASW capabilities that could fallen back upon in a pinch. The argument is much like the around the RNZAF former air strike capability. Not having the capability relies on never needing it. Frigates can also make for a useful presence e.g Freedom of Navigation patrols , the next INTERFET.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 1, 2016 15:25:14 GMT 12
"convoy duty" didn't we discover in WWII that keeping the fighters tied to the bombers was highly ineffective, and it is likely to be much the same with ships now. If you look at the Battle of the Atlantic the escorts and air cover did become the hunters as well. A lot of old lessons have been forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 1, 2016 11:49:07 GMT 12
The RNZN has been short on combat power since the 1960's and it will never regain what it once had. They'd be better off ditching the pointless frigates and getting another ship like Canterbury that actually comes in useful, and some smaller faster craft for chasing down poachers, etc. Good luck using a vessel like HMNZS Canterbury on convoy duty in the event the oil tanker destine for NZ needs escorting. The problem is NZ political leaders won't take note of Air and Sea power until fuel pumps go empty.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Mar 31, 2016 19:34:34 GMT 12
I wonder what percentage of that $11 Billion will be wasted... er sorry... spent on ships? During WW2 the Pacific Theater saw the relationship between Sea and Air Power defined. The basically problem is how weak the RNZAF is minus the air strike/air cover capabilities and the RNZN is short on combat power. Eventually events in New Zealand's backyard will bring this to the forefront. At that point I would see Goff , Key e.t.c explain their loony stances.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Mar 29, 2016 21:19:40 GMT 12
At any rate it is highly dicey the way their is no keenness to even bring the purchases forward given the various goings on in Asia. If something does happen in Asia the NZDF could well be left to face the situation with obsolete equipment.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Mar 29, 2016 19:41:07 GMT 12
I don't know where to start. Goff is off his tree as usual. Upgrading 50 year old aircraft hmm .. Kicking the can down the road as usual so the bill for the replacement of the Orion's is made by another government.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Mar 29, 2016 19:33:59 GMT 12
Sorry if this has been posted already. The Defence Force is set to ask the government for approval to upgrade the submarine detection systems on its Orion planes.Boeing has been chosen as the preferred tenderer if the upgrade, which will cost tens of millions of dollars, goes ahead. The current underwater intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems are 50 years old, the same age as the P-3K2 Orion planes themselves. Despite the former Labour government deciding not to upgrade the anti-submarine warfare systems more than a decade ago, the matter is back before the government.The Ministry of Defence's outgoing deputy director of acquisitions, Des Ashton, said the current equipment was past its use-by date. Defence spending was a matter of priorities and he expected a decision in the next few months. "The strategic assessment that was carried out in the 2010 White Paper identified that this was a requirement that we needed to have. "The old equipment has outlived its day and the new equipment that's available is far more capable and matches contemporary threats." Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee declined to comment until a proposal was presented to him to take to Cabinet. But Labour Party's defence spokesman Phil Goff said he didn't believe the upgrade was necessary. "I suspect that the reason that the government is going ahead is because they have been asked to go ahead by allied countries rather than our own evaluation."Victoria University professor of strategic studies Robert Ayson said the upgrade was necessary. "The South Pacific is not a heavy submarine area but New Zealand also operates further afield." China and other Southeast Asian nations were increasing their underwater capabilities, he said. The next Defence White Paper is due to be released later this month and will include updated plans to replace key defence assets, including the Orion planes. www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/298361/defence-force-eyes-new-submarine-spotters
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Mar 26, 2016 0:38:48 GMT 12
I cannot see why we could not add a couple of larger transports but also retain the five Hercules in service alongside them for a while, on reduced hours to preserve their lifespan with heavier duties taken on by the larger aircraft. Then eventually replace the C-130's with more C-130's. Successive governments have gone out of their way to ensure that sensible decisions concerning military spending isn't permitted. The F-16 deal the last Labour government killed off should have acted as a template for how the RNZAF could acquire the aircraft and other equipment it requires. Politicians are great at kicking the can down the road so they don't have to deal with a certain issue. The problem is eventually the can can't be kicked any further. Realistically the RNZAF's C-130's must be about at this point already.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Mar 21, 2016 20:00:24 GMT 12
The Type 26 is supposed to be quite versatile, and in addition to the core ASW version there was proposed a "general purpose (GP) variant". I suspect the theory behind this is that some of the below deck space would have a modular configuration and a way of launching assault boats or unmanned vessels as with the Danish one. Potentially quite a useful capability but means you then need extra ships on top of your ASW capability. Militaries aren't getting cheaper... I take the view that its better to have vessels that can upscale their combat capabilities in a pinch. The RAN's Anzac Class frigates have been successfully used to inject drug smuggling operations in places like the Indian Ocean. If they had to they could switch to say a ASW role. Following this line of logic the RNZN isn't able to upscale OPV's to a MCW/ASW role. Heck in likely hood the RNZN wouldn't even be able to supply a frigate in the event a oil tanker headed for NZ needs escorting.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Mar 9, 2016 13:32:41 GMT 12
Dave congrats on the honor and thanks for posting pics.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Mar 1, 2016 14:35:35 GMT 12
I think the answer lies in the NZDF lack of wartime experience. By wartime experience I mean more like WW2 than post war conflicts like Vietnam and Afghanistan. Since the majority of people in positions of power have deluded themselves that another global conflict can't take place the demands of wartime conditions (min maintenance and high operational hours) are no longer factored into contingency planning or acquisitions of new equipment.
The NZDF senior commanders over the years must share of the blame. There wasn't anywhere sufficient protest when the RNZAF Air Strike Capabilities was disbanded or the RNZN was turned into a coast guard type force. The Army commanders who enjoyed being the center of Defence Policy won a pyrrhic victory. In reality the army doesn't leave our shores if a hostile power is in control of the sea lanes and airways in the South Pacific.
All I can say is that I am totally stumped by just how stupid successive governments have been over the past 30 years or so when it comes to a lack of strategic thinking. A terrible price will be paid for such colossal blunders.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Feb 26, 2016 20:37:43 GMT 12
Hmmm How dare a Minister expect such things from his advisers? What was he thinking? Surely the advisers are there to provide fudged information with lots of grey areas, and take their time about preparing it - this is the message I get from Goff's reaction anyway... And it what I took from Brownlee stance as well. I think we are disturbingly at a point where the cross party consensus is to have the senior NZDF commanders purely as administrators. This allows the government to appoint lackeys who will the implement the policy ideas they get from lunatic asylums. I don't mean any disrespect to those who have or a currently serving in the NZDF. I just find it increasingly difficult to comprehend the merit of New Zealand's defence posture.
|
|