|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Aug 30, 2010 17:13:25 GMT 12
Defence Policy isn't/shouldn't be based upon public opinion polls. That's why they have a Defence White Paper and a public consultation process, like the current Government have done, unlike the Clark Government did way back when. Regardless of what we discuss in our forum we are interested to see what they outcome of the process above is.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Aug 30, 2010 17:14:13 GMT 12
Dear skyhawkdon...I am not just interested. ???WTF??? ;D the mole is back... |
|
|
|
Post by sirbean on Aug 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT 12
You do not need to wait for the White Paper as Wayne Mapp has already before and after the election said there will NO return to an Air Combat Force in New Zealand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 30, 2010 17:51:26 GMT 12
WOW there is sooooo much feeling and passion on this subject.
For the guys on here with a military background or strong interest in aviation or Defence matters seem to want or think that an Air Combat Force should be re-activated...Yes.
On the other side those against who see this as a non vote winner in the political system.
You need to all look at this from mum and dad taxpayer who simply see an Air Combat Force as expensive toys to show off to their kids at an airshow....and how many hospitals,schools and other more pressing issues would be cut to pay this elaberate force??
The taxpayer(voter) would far sooner see defence staff made redundant than teachers and doctors and the like.
And this folks is why politicians will stay well away from an Air Combat Force as it would be political suacide.
This is just my personal and simple view.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Aug 30, 2010 18:03:30 GMT 12
The Gov't is reported to be about to bail out a finance company to the tune of $1B. Even if they don't bail them out they will still be up for that sort of money (at least) thru the deposit guarantee scheme. One could argue that is political suicide as well! A one off $1B spent on Defence would go a long way towards fixing all the problems... you could damn near reinstate the ACF for that... and yes it would also buy a lot of hip operations and cancer treatments which I wouldn't be against either. Glad I'm not a politician  |
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 30, 2010 18:27:45 GMT 12
Don so I am glad not to be a politican...you are dammed if you do and dammed if you dont.
Stuff that.
|
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Aug 30, 2010 19:05:49 GMT 12
The Gov't is reported to be about to bail out a finance company to the tune of $1B. Even if they don't bail them out they will still be up for that sort of money (at least) thru the deposit guarantee scheme. One could argue that is political suicide as well! A one off $1B spent on Defence would go a long way towards fixing all the problems... you could damn near reinstate the ACF for that... and yes it would also buy a lot of hip operations and cancer treatments which I wouldn't be against either. Glad I'm not a politician A very good analogy Don. The depositors gaurantee scheme will cough up around $600m to cover the Hubbard affair. Could have been over $1.6B if we had tried to do a full bailout package. For the scheme which had up to $150B worth of potential credit lines the 600m which is budgeted for in fiscal yr 10/11 is a very good result in the scheme of things. Means more cash available to fix defence in the years ahead. NZ is getting off very very lightly in this global recession. We have not had to cut the salaries of teachers, doctors, soldiers and nurses around 20% like in Ireland. We have not had major Banks go belly up, just Finance Companies, unlike the US and the Eurozone. Major capaital defence expenditure is paid for (as most of us know) over the long term. If New Zealand needed to buy XYZ piece of defence kit it would NOT mean that hospitals and schools would close. To think it would displays a massive amount of financial and economic illiteracy to go along with the geo-political ignorance. As for push polls such as Should New Zealand have an Air Combat Force? which sirbean alluded to are flawed, you could ask the question in another way and get entirely the opposite result? Should New Zealand provide its soldiers on UN missions with close air support? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 30, 2010 19:09:57 GMT 12
Can any one tell me if there is a possible multi role contender that is been considered.
I see alot of views about some the the RAAF F/A-18 Hornet Classics.
These Classics are some years off retirement with the on going delays to the F-35 and then once and if ever delivered there will be a long phase in/out process.
The Super Hornets are F-111 replacements not classic replacements.
There isa huge stock pile in the Arizona desert of retired USN F/A-18 and USAF F-16's are these on the cards.
I know some one on here will have some clues from leaked or good sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Aug 30, 2010 19:21:07 GMT 12
Can any one tell me if there is a possible multi role contender that is been considered. I see alot of views about some the the RAAF F/A-18 Hornet Classics. These Classics are some years off retirement with the on going delays to the F-35 and then once and if ever delivered there will be a long phase in/out process. The Super Hornets are F-111 replacements not classic replacements. There isa huge stock pile in the Arizona desert of retired USN F/A-18 and USAF F-16's are these on the cards. I know some one on here will have some clues from leaked or good sources. The stored ex USN Navy F/A-18's are stuffed after years of carrier landings. the Spanish got the few good ones some years ago. The Aussies ones will be shagged by the time they are retired as they did not get their centre barrels replaced as originally proposed. There are still very good condition F-16's left at AMARC. There are also ex Belguim and Dutch ones but these tend to be going to either Chile or Jordan. There has been talk that 12 of the Shornets might be available post 2020 but that is becoming unlikely. If you mean a contender for the RNZAF there is already a debate thread for that set up. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 30, 2010 19:27:44 GMT 12
I have seen the debate...lol
If the Government went for an Air Combat Force it would need to be procurred fast or it could well be cancelled like 1999.So a ready to go aircraft with minimal delay would be the order of the day rather than some wish list.
|
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Aug 30, 2010 20:14:33 GMT 12
I think it's good that there is passionate interest in this subject. I guess it's easy for whatever interest group to get tunnel vision and not realise that there are other areas deserving and worthy of government expenditure. I care enough about my country and its future to believe that defence is an important service to be provided by government. I am not secure in believing that the country's best interests have been served with regards to decisions on defence, particularly over the past 10 years. I know that decisions will be made that I may or may not agree with, but my over riding wish is that in the next 54 years before I become worm food I do not live to see bad things happening to NZ as a result of poor decisions made by NZ pollys simply to curry favour and get re-elected.
My analogy regarding defence is the 'I don't need to wear a cycle helmet' lobby. When you are riding your bike normally without any trouble that's fine, you don't need to be wearing a helmet. When you suddenly are involved in an accident or come off your bike, then you need to be wearing a helmet. If you are not, then at that stage it's far too late to wish that you were.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 30, 2010 20:24:25 GMT 12
The Gov't is reported to be about to bail out a finance company to the tune of $1B. Even if they don't bail them out they will still be up for that sort of money (at least) thru the deposit guarantee scheme. One could argue that is political suicide as well! I would also argue that a Government that sold a very lucrative earner for the taxpayer like Telecom off to foreign owners... or that split up Electrocorp making power a lot more expensive across the board.... or privatised the Post Office Savings bank, realised that it had made them a lot of money, so set up an all new post office based bank from the ground up.... or sold off/gave away most of our lucrative forestry industry... or bought back the totally shagged out railways for more than they sold it for when it was in better condition, but now have to pay a private party to use the lines they gave away... would also seemingly be wanting to commit suicide, especially for the country. Why do we vote in total incompetent people, and why do we allow even less competent people (civil servants and private consultants) to advise them? It was reported in the year 2000 just before the Skyhawks and Maachis were grounded that the Air Combat Force cost the country $160 million per year to maintain. A mere drop in the bucket of Government spending. |
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Aug 30, 2010 20:47:16 GMT 12
I have seen the debate...lol If the Government went for an Air Combat Force it would need to be procurred fast or it could well be cancelled like 1999.So a ready to go aircraft with minimal delay would be the order of the day rather than some wish list. Raptor your comment is a bit confusing, (guys apologies if this is off topic) but which of the aircraft on that "wish list" would not be ready to go without delay? Beyond at least regular time constraints namely the usual and totally unavoidable bureaucratic B.S that goes along with aquiring a new weapon system. It's not like anyone is recommending f-35's. The aircraft discussed are all 'in stock' and (relatively speaking) easily obtainable, hell... some of them are even in the RNZAF inventory.  |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Aug 30, 2010 21:39:35 GMT 12
Hey guys, I think we should cool this.
I have my own opinions, but I don't want to get involved in this slanging match so I'll keep them to myself.
Perhaps we should kill this thread before someone gets really hacked, says something they may later regret, and b***gers off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Aug 30, 2010 21:55:53 GMT 12
If you ask me we won't see a proper ACF again in our life time. Best would be the resurrection of the Aermacchis or maybe some other advance trainer like the T-50. There would have to be a large shift in public opinion and the attitude of politicians (or the strategic enviroment) for such a force to grace our skys again.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Aug 30, 2010 22:40:22 GMT 12
You are probably right naki.
however, dreaming is free my friend and nothing is set in stone.
|
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Aug 30, 2010 23:20:02 GMT 12
1. Public opinion can change rapidly and is the fair weather friend of politicians.
2. A defence force without a valid tri-service combat capability is like a hospital without an operating theatre.
3. The fundamental basis of a defence force is the maintenance of not just a countries geographic sovereignty but also its economic sovereignty.
4. A small relatively wealthy liberal democratic country in a maritime environment like New Zealand, dependent on long trade routes that pass through and around an increasing arc of instability must have interdependent trade, diplomatic and defence relationships with its neighbour-allies, and yet must also demonstratively maintain that interdependent relationship with its neighbour-allies with a degree of self reliance in regards to its defence posture.
5. New Zealand’s current defence policy setting is comparitively experimental. It will eventually fail with dramatic cause and effect on the above four points.
|
|
|
|
Post by timmo on Aug 31, 2010 9:41:24 GMT 12
Why do we vote in total incompetent people, and why do we allow even less competent people (civil servants and private consultants) to advise them? Because we have a political and media system that seems far more interested in rhetoric and sensationalist vote catching rather than solidly researched public policy (i.e. Simon Powers refusal to take on board the recommendations of the Drug and Alcohol reviews) plus a public that is either afraid to protest or too apathetic to do so? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Aug 31, 2010 10:22:55 GMT 12
Hi Yogi
The RAAF Super Hornet purchase as I understand it from what I have read is that it is only a stop gap measure to replace the void left by the retirement of the F-111 fleet.
Once the F-35A fleet is in service it will replace both the F/A-18 Hornet Classics and the Super Hornets.This is why the RAAF went for the F-35 to replace both capability's.
I never said we need F-35's jeepers we have more chance of sending a man to the moon.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirbean on Aug 31, 2010 10:52:38 GMT 12
Before you can even think about having another Skyhawk replacement you need the Macchis back in service as an advanced trainer and if the the White Paper does not recommend it re-entering service then I guess there will be no fast jet operations in this country.
I think skyhawkdon said that in year 2000 the cost to maintain an Air Combat Force was $160 Million a year.
I would love to know just how long and how much was needed to get the Macchis up to full Squadron operation???
I hope the Macchis do get back into service but I think the White Paper will be very soft with a few base accomodation(housing) upgrades,a downgrade in the amount of LAV's and a more capable multi engined trainer that will be fitted out for SAR work and off shore fisheries patrol...this will most likely be a commercial short haul airliner...it would be worth considering the Q300 as this could be serviced in Nelson by Air Nelson...although it is no longer in production so second hand may be the answer.
The only other things the White Paper will highlight I guess is the need in the next few years to consider a C-130 replacement.
|
|
