|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Oct 1, 2007 16:04:09 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by aileronroll on Oct 2, 2007 11:35:24 GMT 12
I don't understand why someone as anti defence as Clark insists on attending this sort of thing ?
Sorry Dave if this comment is too political.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Oct 2, 2007 12:14:27 GMT 12
She is the PM of NZ so regardless of her political outlook, she is there as our representative to pay respects to a great New Zealander (albeit British born). Also there is a large elderly voting population in NZ, this generation would remember the great man and his achievements.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Oct 2, 2007 18:03:40 GMT 12
Freyberg was also governor-general from 1946 to 1952, so you can spin this as a political event rather than a military event.
No such option with her planned visit to the 90th commemorations of Passchedale in Belgium on Thursday.
Cheers,
Brett
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 3, 2007 15:02:46 GMT 12
Clark does profess to have a great respect for past veterans of NZ, and often mentions her seven uncles or whatever that served in WWI, etc. She did instigate various veterans things where their stories are being recorded (see the Govt-funded books by Megan Hutchings, etc).
It's a pity she has the opposite regard for current service people.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Oct 3, 2007 17:17:12 GMT 12
It's a pity she has the opposite regard for current service people. Examples? Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 4, 2007 14:06:41 GMT 12
Examples? The RNZAF....
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Oct 6, 2007 20:42:43 GMT 12
Under a Govt she leads the have: - lost the ACF + deployed RNZAF aircraft overseas on several occassions as part of govt foreign policy + begun refurb of Orion and refocused capability + begun refurb of Hercules + begun refurb of Boeings + agreed to purchase new helos |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 8, 2007 13:19:24 GMT 12
All of those things would have happened under any Govt. Some Govt's might have replaced the helicoipters much sooner, kept the strike wing, bought new Hercules, etc.
Also under Clark we're seeing the closure of two key bases, Hobsonville and Whenuapai. We've seen the military relations with the USA fall apart after the cancellation of the best deal for F-16's any country has ever been offered, and thus the cold response from US State Dept on the sale of A-4K's and the M-113's, etc. Let's face facts, she's amde a right mess of things, just like most other areas the current Labour Govt touches. Sadly I don't think the next National mob will do much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Oct 8, 2007 17:39:08 GMT 12
All of those things would have happened under any Govt. Some Govt's might have replaced the helicoipters much sooner, kept the strike wing, bought new Hercules, etc.Possibly but who knows Also under Clark we're seeing the closure of two key bases, Hobsonville and Whenuapai. Is consolidating infrastructure bad? I know 3 Sqn are happier not to be fielding numerous noise complaints every time they do night flying. We've seen the military relations with the USA fall apart Agreed after the cancellation of the best deal for F-16's any country has ever been offered, Depends who you talk to. The deal for the airframes was very good but I've been told by someone on the project team the offered supporting Intergrated Logistics package and money proposed by the National govt for necessary ILS including infrastructure was non existant. and thus the cold response from US State Dept on the sale of A-4K's and the M-113's, etc. Agreed Let's face facts, she's amde a right mess of things, just like most other areas the current Labour Govt touches. We must agree to differ on this comment Sadly I don't think the next National mob will do much better.I won't be holding my breath. They'll probably try and sell off the Armed Services  Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Oct 8, 2007 18:39:34 GMT 12
Interesting exchange of views here gentlemen, I can see both points, but I am inclined to agree with Dave that the Labour Government has consolidated areas of the armed forces at the expense of essential components.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Oct 9, 2007 21:23:57 GMT 12
The deal for the airframes was very good but I've been told by someone on the project team the offered supporting Intergrated Logistics package and money proposed by the National govt for necessary ILS including infrastructure was non existant.
The $200M we were going to get for the Skyhawks selling them to the Philippines was going to pay for all that. In this regard the F-16 deal was almost cost neutral. We were also going to cannibalize 6 of the T-birds and use them for spares rather than purchase separate spares, at a huge cost saving. I believe they are doing the same thing with the NH-90's. One complete airframe is being purchased just to be broken down for spare parts - it is more cost effective to do this than buy all the parts individually. I understand the LAV's were/are no different - a number are permanently cannibalized.
If you look at most major equipment purchases by the NZDF we never have enough money to buy the full logistics support package being offered (in my experience the OEM support packages are usually more than you really need anyway and are highly overpriced), but we always get by, usually with a good dose of kiwi ingenuity. The Macchi was a case in point. They bought a simulator and two extra airframes instead of the full logistics support package. That forced us to think outside the square and we had to design and build all of our own support and test equipment.
|
|
andyc
Flying Officer
Posts: 57
|
Post by andyc on Oct 10, 2007 5:09:38 GMT 12
Also under Clark we're seeing the closure of two key bases, Hobsonville and Whenuapai.
Is consolidating infrastructure bad?
PaulIn a word: yes. Even ignoring the unlikely event of a strike against NZ, it just takes one major accident to close a base and you immediately lose a significant part of your infrastructure. Multiple bases gives you the flexibility to continue ops. This debate was going on in the UK when the Labour (common theme, perhaps) Govt leaked proposals to close Lyneham and base the transport fleet at Brize. Andy |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Oct 10, 2007 17:09:26 GMT 12
In a word: yes. Even ignoring the unlikely event of a strike against NZ, it just takes one major accident to close a base and you immediately lose a significant part of your infrastructure. Multiple bases gives you the flexibility to continue ops. Andy Not a problem here as the accident would probably involve the only aircraft we could afford to run that week  Seriously you are quite correct however as we only have single sqns of each aircraft type even if each sqn were based in a different location, the chances are the remainder of the sqns aircraft would be trapped on the base. Air Force aircraft routinely operate out of non-NZDF airfields so at least in the short term it should not stop all ops. |
|
