|
Post by obiwan27 on Nov 10, 2009 16:58:03 GMT 12
Well that was no problem for the Brits in the Falklands War, so a motivated and well equipped invader could do it. No problem!! Thats a huge rewrite of history. Admiral Woodward admitted he was about to declare the Task Force was no longer viable the day Argentina surrendered and there is the famous quote by a senior RAF officer 'six better fuses and we would have lost'. Remember Britain were only able to project two Brigades. An invader would require way more than that to occupy NZ. Maybe a future invader 'could' muster more than 2 brigades. As for fuses and the big metal things that contain them, thanks to our prior Government we no longer possess the means to deliver them or threaten any potential invader with such!!! Anyway I think the RNZAF have moved on as has been mentioned by more learned and experienced gentlemen than me. Shame about the apathy that represents the reality of our Defence Department's political masters. Glad people with more sense and vision were in charge when it really mattered. I think it still does matter but the only thing 21st Century NZ politicians worry about is the next election and protecting their perks...... I'm afraid we seem to have more of an Air Faux these days, no disrespect intended to serving personnel but it really sh*ts me that the green machine wastes millions on APC's that sit there more or less gathering dust and that we are reliant on our allies to ship anywhere. Great thinking MoD!!! Rant over, time for some bubbly, exams are finished and I'm off to Singapore for 5 weeks on Sunday. I may even catch the sight and sound of SAF F-16's and imagine what might have been here in Aotearoa. ;D
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 10, 2009 17:08:16 GMT 12
Some hard choices coming up here with some good headwork. Disarmament is an option. If defence costs too much, don't have it. You are already quite a way down that track, so the answer could be to go all the way. I suggest you go with the "country for sale" position though, so you all get a return for your citizenship rather than just losing it. Alternatively, if Air New Zealand is as important to national security as phil82 says a few pages back, then why not get them to take over the military transportation role from the RNZAF? If you don't need a combat arm in the RNZAF, then you can't possibly need nationally duplicated transport capabilities. P3s and Seasprites are a Navy mission, and the other helicopters are clearly Army. Why have separate and expensive command structures when you could save a lot by retrenching the RNZAF upper echelons. These people, if they are really lying down and dying on the ACF question, what are they doing? From over here it looks like they are running an Air New Zealand flying school! Kids can self sponsor for an airline job. Why waste money on an air force? Finally, this thread has drifted to be in parallel with the "what if" thread on getting new fighters. If people seriously believe the situation for new fighters, or retention of the old ones, is dead, then get into bed with the RAAF. Formally arrange to place RNZAF pilots on RAAF squadrons, then seek agreed levels of basing for RAAF squadrons in NZ for various periods during each year, much the same as what the RAAF already do for the Singaporeans and Malaysians under the Five Power Defence Agreement. New Zealand used to do this with the Skyhawks and I am betting the odd P3 still deploys forward occasionally. There is a solution out there. It just needs to be sorted...and funded! ;D I remember a training period in Singapore back in the early '90s with your Skyhawk squadron. Great blokes, good aeroplanes...no money. We were happy to sponsor their drinks and entertainment most nights because they didn't get paid much and had no overseas allowances. But seriously guys, is New Zealand really that poor that they can't afford daily rates for their pilots? Let alone aeroplanes?
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Nov 10, 2009 17:17:50 GMT 12
hmm i'm not sure, had a look at their website looks like mostly economic stuff like you said not to sure if they would be interested in this sort of endeavor? That was precisely why I suggested them. This needs to be "sold" on the tangible and non-tangible economic benefits to NZ Inc. rather than in terms of security and potential threats as few in NZ "get it". I also agree with others that the RNZAF has moved on and doesn't want to waste any energy on this. That is particularly disappointing given the number of very senior Air Force officers who are ex ACF pilots. I'm sure privately they feel like we do but in the interests of their "career" they have chosen not to rock the boat and just accept the party line. Right you are don. sorry bout that.
|
|
|
Post by John L on Nov 10, 2009 17:40:42 GMT 12
When was that.? NZ governments have been notorious for running down the armed services and only doing anything of note when everything was on the line....except for a 20 yr lingering effect after WW2..
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Nov 10, 2009 19:07:34 GMT 12
When was that.? NZ governments have been notorious for running down the armed services and only doing anything of note when everything was on the line....except for a 20 yr lingering effect after WW2.. Well I was thinking of the obvious - WW2 and I think we had a fairly good period of reequipping the RNZAF up to the early 1970's. So I think that we are in agreement there ;D
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 11, 2009 8:52:41 GMT 12
Some hard choices coming up here with some good headwork. Disarmament is an option. If defence costs too much, don't have it. You are already quite a way down that track, so the answer could be to go all the way. I suggest you go with the "country for sale" position though, so you all get a return for your citizenship rather than just losing it. Alternatively, if Air New Zealand is as important to national security as phil82 says a few pages back, then why not get them to take over the military transportation role from the RNZAF? If you don't need a combat arm in the RNZAF, then you can't possibly need nationally duplicated transport capabilities. P3s and Seasprites are a Navy mission, and the other helicopters are clearly Army. Why have separate and expensive command structures when you could save a lot by retrenching the RNZAF upper echelons. These people, if they are really lying down and dying on the ACF question, what are they doing? From over here it looks like they are running an Air New Zealand flying school! Kids can self sponsor for an airline job. Why waste money on an air force? Finally, this thread has drifted to be in parallel with the "what if" thread on getting new fighters. If people seriously believe the situation for new fighters, or retention of the old ones, is dead, then get into bed with the RAAF. Formally arrange to place RNZAF pilots on RAAF squadrons, then seek agreed levels of basing for RAAF squadrons in NZ for various periods during each year, much the same as what the RAAF already do for the Singaporeans and Malaysians under the Five Power Defence Agreement. New Zealand used to do this with the Skyhawks and I am betting the odd P3 still deploys forward occasionally. There is a solution out there. It just needs to be sorted...and funded! ;D I remember a training period in Singapore back in the early '90s with your Skyhawk squadron. Great blokes, good aeroplanes...no money. We were happy to sponsor their drinks and entertainment most nights because they didn't get paid much and had no overseas allowances. But seriously guys, is New Zealand really that poor that they can't afford daily rates for their pilots? Let alone aeroplanes? Oh dear I appreciate you are an inveterate shit-stirrer and love playing Devil's Advocate there ON, but I suspect this latest missive is floundering on a rock of incoherence I suspect you spent too long in the hover, and the claim that new technology has developed a fog which can be made to order would come as no surprise to you. First, Air New Zealand is no more capable of running the Transport arm of the RNZAF than Qantas is of doing the same for the RAAF. As far as I know, ANZ have yet to put a 777 into an unsealed strip in Afghanistan, nor does it carry out supply dropping! I appreciate you're not being serious with these comments but you really must try harder! I don't think the secondment of RNZAF pilots to the RAAF is such a bad idea; it would certainly improve the overall quality, not to mention the average knucklehead's IQ That last bit about allowances is pure horse-feathers by the way: every time I went to Singapore I was generously rewarded, in fact I bought a car with the grants paid to me the day I arrived in the Merlin Hotel! If all those Kiwi pilots conned you into buying the drinks, then I would say it was a case of mind over matter! ;D
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 11, 2009 11:32:14 GMT 12
Only partly devil's advocacy phil82. I would never suggest you take a 777 to an unsealed strip in Afghanistan, but you don't need to be in an air force to land an aeroplane whether the strip is sealed or unsealed. A man of your calibre already knows that. Don't try the old "must be trained by the air force to be able to fly" trick. All air forces lost that sole right way back in the 50s. Indeed, RNZAF already uses a commercial supplier to provide their training aircraft. It won't be too long before they use commercial instructors as well.
There is nothing to stop a professional trash hauler working for a commercial trash hauling company from taking a C130, or some other suitable type, into Afghanistan. After all, a good proportion of the ANZ aircrew are already RNZAF trained. Are you seriously saying they can't hack it? In the case I advocate, the aeroplane would still be government owned/sponsored, just the paint scheme and crewing arrangements would be more in line with the zero defence spending policies of your govt. ;D You are the guys telling me the problems! I am simply offering solutions! To take a line from "Kelly's Heroes," "Quit with the negative vibes, Man!"
;D ;D exactly! That's the spirit!! ;D ;D Much more like a positive answer!
Maybe you are right? ;D Maybe I am right? 8-)I would never expect anyone in NZ to acknowledge how generous we were, that's the way it is with family...
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 11, 2009 11:59:08 GMT 12
I too can dispell the rumour that we were never paid any overseas allowances when we went on deployment. In comparison to our allies it was less, but I always found them to be pretty generous and I often managed to bring a wod of FOREX home with me from most trips (the allowances were always paid out in the currency of the country we were staying in).
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 11, 2009 14:10:11 GMT 12
I too can dispell the rumour that we were never paid any overseas allowances when we went on deployment. In comparison to our allies it was less, but I always found them to be pretty generous and I often managed to bring a wod of FOREX home with me from most trips (the allowances were always paid out in the currency of the country we were staying in). When I was posted to ANZUK for two years, I was greeted at the hotel by the usual gathering , complete with numerous beers, but including someone from Pay Accounts with a large amount of cash! The allowances while there were always pretty good I thought, and when I came back aftre two years there was another lumps some for something or other!
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 11, 2009 14:30:25 GMT 12
Only partly devil's advocacy phil82. I would never suggest you take a 777 to an unsealed strip in Afghanistan, but you don't need to be in an air force to land an aeroplane whether the strip is sealed or unsealed. A man of your calibre already knows that. Don't try the old "must be trained by the air force to be able to fly" trick. All air forces lost that sole right way back in the 50s. Indeed, RNZAF already uses a commercial supplier to provide their training aircraft. It won't be too long before they use commercial instructors as well. There is nothing to stop a professional trash hauler working for a commercial trash hauling company from taking a C130, or some other suitable type, into Afghanistan. After all, a good proportion of the ANZ aircrew are already RNZAF trained. Are you seriously saying they can't hack it? In the case I advocate, the aeroplane would still be government owned/sponsored, just the paint scheme and crewing arrangements would be more in line with the zero defence spending policies of your govt. ;D You are the guys telling me the problems! I am simply offering solutions! To take a line from "Kelly's Heroes," "Quit with the negative vibes, Man!" ;D ;D exactly! That's the spirit!! ;D ;D Much more like a positive answer! Maybe you are right? ;D Maybe I am right? 8-)I would never expect anyone in NZ to acknowledge how generous we were, that's the way it is with family... There isn't any logic in an ANZ/Military connection. The matter of currency on type would mean they would be separated anyway, and there is no cost savings to be made; have you seen the size of Commercial pilot's wallets? In fact, I do have experience of Australian hospitality, lottsa times,and the fact of it's reciprocation. Some years ago I arrived at Tindal on a Herc and was promptly whisked away by an Oz Doctor and a local cop down to the local surgery at Katherine where an injured Aussie soldier had been taken after a road accident which killed his mate. I have a rare blood group, which was what was required, and I was the only donor available. They kept me there overnight, but the guy died, and I eventually ended up resting at Tindal until rescued by the very same RAAF Doc who had clearance from my boss on 14 Sqn to remove me to Darwin for ten days R &R. Never bought a beer the whole time! Flew up to Darwin with the coffin containing the Digger as it happened. Them's the breaks!
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 11, 2009 15:06:55 GMT 12
;D ;D Your story on the Tindal experience is incredible. I was there in '89 and had a great time. Nothing so exciting though! Sorry Mate. You miss my point, but we are nearly there. This is the devil's advocacy talking now. I am not saying a connection between ANZ and RNZAF is needed, or any connection with other of the forces. You guys are telling me you can't afford this and you can't afford that. I am accepting and supporting your argument. If you can't afford it, don't have it. You currently operate 2 government sponsored air services. Get rid of the RNZAF because you say it is nationally important to have a flag carrier airline. Without any air force, you could then employ on an "as required basis" ANZ, or some other suitably qualified civilian government arm, as contractors. Let them own and operate the equipment. Being commercial they will be much more efficient. You won't need the expensive military tail, just a few civilian contractors. The savings will be in all the service people no longer in uniform, including expensive flag ranks, and the huge expense associated with mil spec equipment. Remember, you are putting up the problems, I am just trying to think of solutions. There is another path, and this is what I really advocate. Properly fund your Defence Forces. Keep your transport, maritime and rotary wing elements, and acquire a fast jet capability. You have done it all before and can do it all again... ;D I have probably said enough on this thread for the moment and will sign off. Thanks for the debate though!
|
|
|
Post by nige on Nov 11, 2009 16:23:15 GMT 12
Errr, that Stuff report on the Skyhawk "sale" quotes vice-CAF AVM Dave Bamfield as being retired. Is he or isn't he? If so, he talks about the matter as if he is still in the RNZAF! On the other hand if he's retired then good on the reporter for talking to someone in the know, who may be tempted so let on a bit more etc, hint, hint!
|
|
|
Post by vgp on Nov 11, 2009 18:35:57 GMT 12
AVM David Bamfield retired from the RNZAF on 1 February 2008 after more than 40 years service. To mark the occasion CDF Lt General Jerry Mateparae presented AVM Bamfield with a limited edition print of the 'Return of the Unknown Warrior' at his farewell morning tea. AVM Bamfield (Rtd) will work as a civilian in the NZDF over the next two years, helping to implement the Defence Transformation Programme (DTP). www.airforce.mil.nz/operations/airforce-news/90/vcdf-departs.htm
|
|
|
Post by nige on Nov 11, 2009 21:42:45 GMT 12
Thanks VGP, but so then is AVM Bamfield working as a civee in the MoD then (eg on the sale)?
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 12, 2009 20:08:23 GMT 12
[/quote] On what basis do you surmise the RNZAF has no reason to exist?[/quote]
I actually want it to exist and grow. I'm actually more worried about it losing further roles and capabilities and its leadership bending over and taking it. Part of the need to play the devils advocate is to push people buttons and it has seemed to have worked.
I have had this put to me: "Half a billion a year is a lot to spend on an air force of five squadrons that no longer has any actual force. It's just an Air Corps like the Irish."
He had a point.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 12, 2009 20:25:23 GMT 12
I have totally lost the track of this thread many days and pages ago, so just taking back onto the end....
One thing people seem to forget about the RNZAF is that as well as New Zealand's Air Force it is also expected to be the surrogate Air Force of many other nations, such as Samoa, Tonga, Rarotonga, Fiji, the Antarctic region, etc, who call on it for search and rescue, disaster relief, tranport, etc. We give many millions to those nations and regions in free aid, and yet do they contribute anything back to the force that defends them, does their SAR work, does their aid relief, etc? Why not cut their aid budgets and put it into defence to cover all the missions that NZ has to pay for for these other nations.
|
|
|
Post by Radialicious on Nov 12, 2009 21:06:03 GMT 12
Good on ya Dave, my thoughts exactly.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 13, 2009 16:53:31 GMT 12
Force?
AGM-65D(NZ) is quite a bit of force.
Mk82 is still fairly forceful.
Depth charges, torpedos... all exert many tons per square inch of force when they go off too.
Tired of this 'No Force' bullshit. There are more weapons platforms than just the A4. Less force perhaps, but no force? Hardly.
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Nov 13, 2009 17:07:52 GMT 12
You are, of course, Phil assuming that all 6 P3s can be airborne at the same time and be able to get through to the target and still be capable of hitting it. That is why just one or two wouldn't hack it through the AA defences. 8 to 10 combat aircraft would stand a better chance of getting a couple through. There is a world of difference between attacking a benign taget and one that is being defended. If you have troops calling for air support a depth charge of torpedo may not be much use on the land! You need to start taking a wider view.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Nov 13, 2009 19:07:15 GMT 12
no money for a global hawk
|
|