|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 9, 2015 17:16:43 GMT 12
There will be Officers that are smart, been there done that, and possibly are not prepared to tolerate fools. Isn't the root of the problem when the government appoints yes men to the senior NZDF leadership positions? Yes men seem to have been around when Helen Clark and her cronies were taking their wreck ball to the NZDF.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 8, 2015 20:26:24 GMT 12
Baronbeeza would you mind if I Private Messaged you about what said about Poland and Hungry as I don't want to take the threat off topic?
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 8, 2015 19:33:53 GMT 12
Baronbeeza I kind of disagree with you for different reasons. Air Power alone isn't going to defeat Isis or the Iranian backed forces in Yemen. From memory American Air Power played a big role in defeating the North Vietnamese offensive. The Army of South Vietnam was institutionally so useless that they weren't able to take advantage of the enemy logistical problems or the damage B-52 strikes had inflicted upon on them.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 8, 2015 19:25:24 GMT 12
Although I can recall Ministers of Defence from the past (when I was young) who had military backgrounds. It would be preferable if the Minster of Defence had served in the NZDF. A level of understanding of geopolitics or even what you might call military theory is required. In short this translates to making sound decisions on the basis of NZ defence needs and not warped left wing views or purely cost cutting measures.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 7, 2015 22:15:45 GMT 12
Now where are those Skyhawks to help out the boys I was just thinking that F-16's would have been good as well.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 7, 2015 20:07:51 GMT 12
Ron Mark is probably correct to some degree. Kiwi troops in Iraq may well have to be evacuated in the face of advancing Isis forces. The New Zealand and Australian government's could well face a decision over the timing of the evacuation of troops from Iraq. Balancing out the security of the troops while avoiding being seen as cutting and running from Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 6, 2015 17:53:40 GMT 12
The Brits are headed for another round of defence cuts. The per unit cost of the Type 26 Frigate will rise if the RN orders fewer of them. This could influence the NZ government decision making.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 4, 2015 13:23:35 GMT 12
I am all for diplomacy. But in the event diplomacy fails I think New Zealand needs a back stop. OPV's and HMZS Canterbury aren't going to form a part of the RNZN response to the sea lanes around New Zealand being threatened by Chinese military action.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jun 3, 2015 23:42:12 GMT 12
Better questions are: "what scenarios could possibly require surface combat capabilities if the future turns out to be less rosy than we all hope?", "what defence capabilities should we not expect (ie beg) our allies to provide when we need them?", and "how much more likely do unfavourable scenarios become with reduced NZDF capabilities?" Potential flash points in our region might include Myanmar, Spratley Islands, China/Taiwan, China/Japan, South East Asian instability, and arguably Mediterranean instability causing ISIS expansion to South East Asia. I'm sure the government has all this in mind, and probably needs to put more budget into both Defence and Foreign Affairs. I think Australian dramas and budget blowouts with their AWD programme raise the likelyhood that Australian frigates may not be the best fit for NZDF. I think we should also consider the possibility that our population is increasing and our strategic environment is NOT becoming more benign, so more combat ships and even submarines may be the way to go if government was to do a full evaluation (since virtually every potential aggressor in Asia would likely use subs against our frigates). Talking about tri forces, I have to agree that land an infantry company for anything more than low-intensity peacekeeping has to involve getting capabilities we just don't have—including air combat, amour, heavy lift helos, and proper amphibious docking ships that aren't yet another adapted RORO ferry. As I have argued else where the primary mission of the NZDF should be to counter Chinese Area Denial/Area Access capabilities and not peacekeeping.I think the government would only go for Australian build frigates for political reasons.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 31, 2015 17:53:14 GMT 12
Remember those Labour fwits who reckoned our Skyhawks were clapped out? See what the Brazilians have done; Click HEREInteresting. New Zealand political and military leaders are certainly destine to relearn some hard lessons about the value of air power the hard way.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 26, 2015 18:21:41 GMT 12
For anybody who may be interested my submission can now be found on my blog. While I may only agree with a couple of your points, you may like to change the Royal New Zealand Army to New Zealand Army. The 'Royal' title goes to individual corps/units/regiment not the army over all. Thank you for the correction , its not something that I caught while gathering my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 26, 2015 12:39:25 GMT 12
Very interesting , thank you for posting the link.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 26, 2015 0:30:08 GMT 12
For anybody who may be interested my submission can now be found on my blog.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 24, 2015 2:15:57 GMT 12
I take it you are referring to the Rhodesian Air Force in the UDI years? Your right about their being lessons to be learned from history. I was attempting to display a sense of humor while making this point. I could have made a more serious point about air power. But I am sure the members of this forum are already well aware and would be able to express it better then I ever could. Defence planners are constraint by the decisions of a sitting government. Just look at the Falklands War. If Argentina had waited 6 months or a year the RN wouldn't have had any carriers in service. Sure money isn't the complete answer. But who looks out for the NZDF? Just who should speak out about how Kiwi troops in Afghanistan were entirely reliant on coalition partners for CAS?
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 23, 2015 23:02:45 GMT 12
You may have to learn how to take a joke occasionally but then again you don't go to war expecting to win every battle. Didn't you get the memo? NZ doesn't need air power. Under War Plan Key Clark Waka's will serve in a ASW role. Depth chargers will be role over the side.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 23, 2015 12:15:25 GMT 12
Given how appalling the current and past governments track records in the area of defence , I don't find the idea of the RNZAF getting A-10's to be realistic at all.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 15, 2015 21:45:26 GMT 12
Don't forget New Zealand's population is getting bigger by the day. By 2025 we'll probably have about 6 million people here at the rate of current immigration and two C-17's will seem like not enough. That would require some foresight. When was the last time the NZ government showed any foresight when it comes to defence matters?
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 9, 2015 14:35:17 GMT 12
Thank You for posting this. Would there be any objections if I posted my submission on the boards? It will appear in my blog.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 9, 2015 14:30:09 GMT 12
Should New Zealand have its own indigenous defence and aviation industries to cater for the NZDF specific needs? For me this is at the heart of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 5, 2015 0:20:07 GMT 12
I am more interested in the capabilities the RNZAF would gain from operating C-17's than I am online rumours about their would be purchase. I mentioned INTERFET in a previous post for good reasons. Afterwards the Australian's would eventually acquire the Canberra LHD to rectify as a response to the lessons learned from the intervention in East Timor. If one puts speculation and rumours aside there is still plenty of food for thought.fact is If more people ( aka arm chair generals ) cared about the armed services they would have suffered under successive governments. Just my 10 cents.
|
|