|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jul 16, 2018 17:26:02 GMT 12
This is a classic piece of American “ra-ra-ra, we are the greatest” propaganda, but it is a fascinating video nonetheless…
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Jul 17, 2018 1:03:05 GMT 12
Hmm, somehow I'd missed this on the Govt website: www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2018-07/P-8_A3.pdfI see some definite 'anti' sentiment in the media circles now... still, the deals done, it'll quieten down after a few weeks. Actually has been comparatively quite compared to in the past! Of course the argument 'against' is simplistic, the argument 'for' is complex... guess that's why it's so hard to get some in the media to show balance, they can't cope with big words & long sentences! I also wish the NZDF would (be allowed to) step back from their vanilla 'PR' and actually explain that their work is not just all SAR & HADR & fisheries patrols! NZ's interests are far ranging & complex - often outside our EEZ, certainly the South Pacific. |
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jul 17, 2018 22:50:28 GMT 12
And possibly explain that if they did spot a submarine, they are not going to be telling every one, "cause that's the name of the game". isc
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jul 17, 2018 23:04:23 GMT 12
Hmm, somehow I'd missed this on the Govt website: www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2018-07/P-8_A3.pdfI see some definite 'anti' sentiment in the media circles now... still, the deals done, it'll quieten down after a few weeks. Actually has been comparatively quite compared to in the past! Of course the argument 'against' is simplistic, the argument 'for' is complex... guess that's why it's so hard to get some in the media to show balance, they can't cope with big words & long sentences! I also wish the NZDF would (be allowed to) step back from their vanilla 'PR' and actually explain that their work is not just all SAR & HADR & fisheries patrols! NZ's interests are far ranging & complex - often outside our EEZ, certainly the South Pacific. NZDF and particularly the RNZAF, are their own worst enemies with PR,we would still have an ACF if they pulled finger in 2001! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 17, 2018 23:22:53 GMT 12
How on earth do you figure that Saratoga?
|
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Jul 18, 2018 9:39:30 GMT 12
Saratoga needs to realise that the NZDF are servants of the crown, and must abide by Government direction in terms of PR. In the case of the ACF, the government had made the decision to disband it, and the RNZAF in particular was not in a position to question that in PR terms. There was a deal of lobbying by concerned parties externally of defence, but to no avail.
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Jul 18, 2018 10:42:59 GMT 12
How on earth do you figure that Saratoga? Saratoga needs to realise that the NZDF are servants of the crown, and must abide by Government direction in terms of PR. In the case of the ACF, the government had made the decision to disband it, and the RNZAF in particular was not in a position to question that in PR terms. There was a deal of lobbying by concerned parties externally of defence, but to no avail. I think what Saratoga is getting at is that while the Army and Navy both had superb print and TV campaigns in the mid-late 90's, the Air Force by comparison was practically invisible. It is not the only factor, but possibly a significant one in creating the environment where disbanding the ACF was publicly permissible. |
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Jul 18, 2018 11:48:44 GMT 12
There is no doubt that the Army in particular was lobbying the then opposition in the mid 1990s, hence the LAV buy etc. However, when "government direction" says that no pictures of A4's carrying
weapons etc are to be used for PR as that might offend the public as bing "too warlike", and there is a senior management direction that the RNZAF is "not into lobbying" the end result was inevitable
|
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Jul 18, 2018 13:16:56 GMT 12
I also wish the NZDF would (be allowed to) step back from their vanilla 'PR' and actually explain that their work is not just all SAR & HADR & fisheries patrols! NZ's interests are far ranging & complex - often outside our EEZ, certainly the South Pacific.
This is also my school of thought on this point. I suspect the NZDF is under political constraints not de facto highlight how they lack sufficient numbers of existing capabilities or a lacking certain capabilities to meet their roles assigned to them by the NZ government.
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jul 18, 2018 17:36:23 GMT 12
Not withstanding the politics of it...
As the RNZAF only ever really showcased things like SAR and airlift, it missed an opportunity to show the value in an ACF.
Flying the flag in Australiasia and the international kudos gained through that,the 'insurance' effect of having at least the nucleus of a combat force,the expertise required to maintain the force and the skills and how that fed into industry and the economy.
Not saying it would have swayed the politicians,but with groundswell support it might have been seen as an investment not just ,'oh ,we could pay beneficiaries for a week with that money'.And the hidden cost of disbanding the ACF was almost more than the cost of keeping it going for the next 10yrs!
|
|
|
|
Post by fishing2day on Jul 18, 2018 19:53:42 GMT 12
There is no doubt that the Army in particular was lobbying the then opposition in the mid 1990s, hence the LAV buy etc. It isn't within the remit of these boards, but one day I'd love to hear what went on within the NZDF over the LAV purchase. I know (because i know some of the politicians involved) that they relied heavily on NZDF advice when buying the LAVs. Yet we got too many, and they couldn't be carried in a Hercules. |
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jul 19, 2018 0:08:32 GMT 12
There is no doubt that the Army in particular was lobbying the then opposition in the mid 1990s, hence the LAV buy etc. It isn't within the remit of these boards, but one day I'd love to hear what went on within the NZDF over the LAV purchase. I know (because i know some of the politicians involved) that they relied heavily on NZDF advice when buying the LAVs. Yet we got too many, and they couldn't be carried in a Hercules. Look about the Commission of Inquiry into the Gordon letter (and associated stuff). It's a damning indictment of one branch of the military undermining the others, and the policy of the government of the day. More heads should have rolled than did. Some of those same people are still in uniform. I wish people would stop these nonsensical references to transporting modern armour in a C-130. It's fantasy land and doesn't reflect any tactical need whatsoever. Just wait until we end up following Australia and buying Boxer - the damn thing can barely fit in a A400 at theatre entry standard. |
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jul 19, 2018 10:39:30 GMT 12
I wish people would stop these nonsensical references to transporting modern armour in a C-130. It's fantasy land and doesn't reflect any tactical need whatsoever. Just wait until we end up following Australia and buying Boxer - the damn thing can barely fit in a A400 at theatre entry standard. I don’t see NZLAV going anywhere for a while, so in NZ context yes you can move a troop of NZ armour via airlift, pity that’s all can be moved by NZ standards. No fuel no ammo no water etc you can’t sustain that troop. By comparison the US Interim Brigade Combat Team ( force sized between light and heavy armour supported by infantry up to 4000 pers) is tasked to be rapidly deployable by C130 within 96 hrs. RAAF has the capacity to deploy a infantry battalion plus a troop of armour (light or heavy) in one lift www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a403629.pdfAs I said logistic is the unsung hero of the modern battlefield www.stripes.com/news/1st-id-task-force-s-tanks-deployed-to-northern-iraq-1.4187 |
|
jaybee
Squadron Leader
Posts: 125
|
Post by jaybee on Jul 19, 2018 13:53:23 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jul 19, 2018 16:50:41 GMT 12
The Interim Brigades, now called Stryker Brigades, C-130 portability was given up as a requirement by US Army years ago as the weight of the vehicles after numerous in service upgrades have grown in weight past what was tactically practical and now past what is technically possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jul 19, 2018 17:17:07 GMT 12
Just wait until we end up following Australia and buying Boxer - the damn thing can barely fit in a A400 at theatre entry standard. Best we get them C17's then. |
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jul 19, 2018 18:15:31 GMT 12
The Interim Brigades, now called Stryker Brigades, C-130 portability was given up as a requirement by US Army years ago as the weight of the vehicles after numerous in service upgrades have grown in weight past what was tactically practical and now past what is technically possible. Interesting thought they topped out at 19t just enough for C130 |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jul 19, 2018 22:09:05 GMT 12
Pretty sure this is the P3K2 Orion replacement thread, or it was....
|
|
|
|
Post by bobajob on Jul 19, 2018 22:11:40 GMT 12
Ditto
|
|
|
|
Post by vansvilla on Jul 22, 2018 21:09:39 GMT 12
In reply to some of the Defence acquisitions, ie LAV, Frigates, P3 life extensions and so on read this book,
Timing is everything. The politics and processes on NZ Defence acquisitions and decision making.
Written by Peter Greener.
It can be downloaded for free on the interweb.
Also deals with the F16 deal and disbandonment of the Strike Force. The Charles Upham saga.
Pretty interesting.
|
|
