|
|
Post by Chris F on Sept 14, 2010 11:11:38 GMT 12
There is one very important thing that I hope comes from the White Paper and its this.
The last decade has seen our Defence Force in the Clint Eastwood movie-
The Good The Bad and the Ugly.
The good things-
1/New modern helicopters
2/Pay increases for all Defence personel
3/New naval ships(in principal)
4/Ohakea Base upgrade.
5/757 aircraft.
The Bad.
1/C-130 upgrade.
2/P-3 upgrade issues and delay.
3/New Naval vessels issues.
4/The amount excessive LAV's.
The Ugly
1/The disbandment of the Air Combat Force.
2/The ongoing sale of the ACF.
3/The purchase of 109 LAV's for a maritime nation.
We need to make sensible Defence buys and plan for the future needs and hopefully learn for the decade of so many harse mistakes.
Lets hope that common sense starts to filter through and we buy a military designed transport like the CN-235 to forfill a multi role capability.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Sept 14, 2010 11:12:52 GMT 12
Please Mr Mapp can we have some  and were did this photo come from?? cleaver photo-editing? No cleaver was used, but perhaps "clever"? I knocked it up last night in PhotoShop. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwiscanfly on Sept 14, 2010 12:27:28 GMT 12
sorry......... "Clever" photo Dave |
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Sept 14, 2010 12:46:15 GMT 12
Regarding the conversation on the other page (34) between arclight, oldnavy and yak2. I think that arclight reflects current (misguided) thinking by many in the NZ population and that oldnavy and yak2 make valid points. I think that NZ should be working together with Australia as it has done in the past to defend our part of the South Pacific and meet our treaty obligations in the Asia Pacific region also. This includes having an integrated Defence Force (as we used to before the disbanding of the ACF), a Force that complements and supports each 'arm' (Army, Navy and Air Force) and does the same for our allies ie. Australia and the USA in particular. With regards to China, yes they are our most important trading partner but this does not mean that we should be abandoning our defence and treaty obligations simply because they are a potential 'enemy'. The point is not to identify potential enemies but identify the capabilities required to meet any threat to NZ sovereignty in alliance with our immediate allies and/or trading partners. NZ had a lot of trade with the USSR during the Cold War if I recall. The fact is that we had the opportunity to upgrade our ACF in 1999 with the F16 purchase and retain the kind of ability I describe above without spending massive amounts of dosh. Now, with the debacles in Defence spending over the past 10 years, we need to chart a course for the future that retains our Maritime and Transport capability as well as reactivating a fast jet capability. This is in the interests of protecting what we hold dear and what too many people here in NZ simply take for granted. NZers on the whole are not bludgers and the majority of people do have insurance on our properties or belongings. How about investing in the insurance of our country and its future generations? That's what I think that the Defence White Paper should be doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Sept 14, 2010 12:58:47 GMT 12
New Zealand and Australia are working together. Robbie Deans has done wonders for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Sept 14, 2010 13:11:40 GMT 12
NZ WHITE PAPER – AND DEFENSE RELATIONSHIP WITH AUSTRALIA I see that a few of our Australian cousins visit this site and provide good incite, both regarding their own military, For the record, I’ma kiwi, just happen to live in Aussie and have a bit to do with the ADF. and also into the state of our defence relationship. I feel a bit guilty though whenever they point-out that, “Kiwis aren’t pulling their weight anymore” and that they feel quite “let down” by us because of the lack of reciprocity. That’s a minority view put forward by a few conservative commentators. It’s not what I consider widespread. Like Kiwis, most Aussies don’t really care about defence and certainly not defence of NZ. I actually think NZDF does pull its weight Also, I’m aware that many young Australians are now growing-up believing that “ANZAC” was just the name for Aussie ‘diggers’, with no reference to the Kiwis that fought beside them Sometimes I think this a issue, one that the media is primarily responsible for. But other times I don’t, most still know what the NZ stands for. And they still sing the NZ anthem at ANZAC day where I live. As for China, I don’t see them as the threat in the medium term that many here in Australia do. China already has full access to Australia resources and that is what they want/need. This also suits Australia and is primarily why Australia avoided a recession. I can’t see any logical reason why China think they would need to use force change this. I actually think internal problems within China are more likely to be a issue for them. Onto the RNZAF Sure I’d love to see the NZDF equipped with a well rounded force with increased levels but I can acknowledge the public basically don’t see the need. Whilsit the public are uninterested (which wont change) the political will to expend limited cash on equipping the NZDF for the full range of scenarios won’t exist. What the NZDF does need to do is sped its money wisely on capbilites that it is more likely to use. And sadly this means that an ACF is luxury not a necessity. An additional ANZAC would IMHO be more worthwhile than the ACF (as much as it pains me to admit) IMHO for the RNZAF this means an OoB as follows in no particular order): 5 MPA’s - Eg new Orions with a full ASuW and ASW capability. Not just a surveillance capability as now. 4 Global hawk UAV’s to handle surveillance of the EEZ. 8 Strategic transports (757 and C-130J) 4-6 tactical transports 12 medium lift helicopters (NH-90) 8 LUH’s I’d prefer something larger than the A-109 eg EC 145 and consideration should given to arming these). 6 maritime support helo’s. Unfortunately as Australia is finding out there isn’t a off the shelf aircraft that can do ASW and still be a good utility helicopter. The Seasprite doesn’t really here. All training to op conversion done by contractors/other airforces. Any VIP work done by contractors albeit with RNZAF aircrew aka the RAAF VIP fleet |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Sept 14, 2010 13:40:08 GMT 12
Regarding the conversation on the other page (34) between arclight, oldnavy and yak2. I think that arclight reflects current (misguided) thinking by many in the NZ population and that oldnavy and yak2 make valid points. I think that NZ should be working together with Australia as it has done in the past to defend our part of the South Pacific and meet our treaty obligations in the Asia Pacific region also. Who says they aren’t? It’s just that NZ has decided that a fast jet capability offers insufficient bang of buck and that the money could be better spent elsewhere. No whether you agree with that or not is another argument. But I think this will be a increasingly conclusions other countries will come to in the future. Look at the UK IIRC they are likely to have No MPA fleet. The Harriers and tornado fleets are on the chopping block. With the cost of equipment countries need to make sure their forces are equipped for the conflicts they are fighting today before they sped money on capabilities The lack of battlefield helicopters in the UK armed forces is an example of this. The fact is that we had the opportunity to upgrade our ACF in 1999 with the F16 purchase and retain the kind of ability I describe above without spending massive amounts of dosh. Unfortunately hat was then, this is now. The world is a lot different from 1999. I’d argue that even if the ACF was around today with those F-16’s it would be under consideration for the chop. I worked on A-4’s whilst I was in and I love the aircraft but I can understand the thinking of those who don’t think the capability is required by a small air force. Now, with the debacles in Defence spending over the past 10 years, we need to chart a course for the future that retains our Maritime and Transport capability as well as reactivating a fast jet capability. This is in the interests of protecting what we hold dear and what too many people here in NZ simply take for granted. NZers on the whole are not bludgers and the majority of people do have insurance on our properties or belongings. How about investing in the insurance of our country and its future generations? That's what I think that the Defence White Paper should be doing. Insurance is good as but it has to be affordable. That is crux of the matter. For the budget the NZDF has my argument is that an ACF capability is expensive and thus only offers insurance for a small range of threats. The same money spent elsewhere provides insurance for a wider range of threats, or even more importantly rectifies current deficiencies in our OoB. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Sept 14, 2010 13:55:20 GMT 12
A good debate going on here, and there is no right answer. Shopping list mentality creeping in, for what it's worth, here is what I would do given the tightness of finances over the ditch: Privatise maritime patrol (like Australian Border Protection Command) and forget about ASW...no one around NZ has subs. Steer clear of UAVs. Expensive and overrated. Unrealistic expectation on capability and no military value in an NZ context. Commercialise Strategic transport - let the Govt owned airline supply aeroplanes on an "as required basis". 6 tactical transports...you choose. If you ask for 4-6 you'll get less than the lower number. Be firm with the number you want. Select a military aircraft of the many suitable available types. Actual aircraft type not really important, provided it can get in and out of a hot zone. It's only transport after all. Instead of replacing one type of helicopter (the Huey) with many, just get 16 medium lift helicopters (NH-90?) to do the multi-role job of everything. Ditch LUH’s and any aspiration towards them. Let a private contractor do the training with Bell 206s. Use some of the NH-90 as maritime support helo’s. With the significant funds saved, I would regenerate the Macchis as LIFT aircraft with a token military capability (guns and rockets) and buy 12 second hand multi-role F16Cs (guns, bombs AMRAAM and Maverick) from the USAF as they replace theirs with the F35. That would be a Representative core force which could be built up in time of need, and which would be deployable in support of allies in less threatening times. It would also probably cost less than what you are doing now... I am only saying...  |
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Sept 14, 2010 14:05:18 GMT 12
oldnavy one thing we should do is ditch the VIP role,Air NZ should provide an aircraft for this be it a Q300 or Beech 1900 just for internal flights that the King Airs provide for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Sept 14, 2010 14:56:11 GMT 12
A good debate going on here, and there is no right answer. Agreed.  Shopping list mentality creeping in, for what it's worth, here is what I would do given the tightness of finances over the ditch: Shopping lists are fun ;D Privatise maritime patrol (like Australian Border Protection Command) and forget about ASW...no one around NZ has subs. Can't agree with ASW Phil . I actually think that ASW and MPA's are more likely to be useful to a coalition than Fighter aircraft. And if China really did want to hurt NZ militarily then popping of a few merchant ships outside our harbour sends a message. Plus a good MPA offers so much more. Even in the overland/ELINT role. Steer clear of UAVs. Expensive and overrated. Unrealistic expectation on capability and no military value in an NZ context. Can't either agree Phil . UAV's are the future. You pilots just need to accept the fact. ;D The global hawk is perfect for a long range persistent EEZ surveillance platform. Certainly much cheaper to operate than a MPA. You could argue that RNZAF doesn't need to operate them but some government agency does. In saying that I could see this being done by a contractor but having the RNZAF own them means they may be useful for South pacific Rogue state type contingencies. Commercialise Strategic transport - let the Govt owned airline supply aeroplanes on an "as required basis". I could live with that 6 tactical transports...you choose. If you ask for 4-6 you'll get less than the lower number. Be firm with the number you want. Select a military aircraft of the many suitable available types. Actual aircraft type not really important, provided it can get in and out of a hot zone. It's only transport after all. Need to define Tactical. I still think a mix of C-130J and a smaller transport is needed. Instead of replacing one type of helicopter (the Huey) with many, just get 16 medium lift helicopters (NH-90?) to do the multi-role job of everything. My problem with all NH-90 fleet in a NZ context is the frames size and cost limits the amount of airframes. 8 is not enough I don't care what anyone says. Helicopters, even new ones are incredibly maintenance intensive. The RNZAF are leaping forward 30+ years in technology here from the Huey Ditch LUH's and any aspiration towards them. Let a private contractor do the training with Bell 206s. I agree don't waste hours on the LUH teaching helicopter pilots. The LUH fleet should be used operationally. They should be able to be easily deployed via C-130 and do small troop transport, medivac, SF support. That why a EC-145 sized aircraft is better. This would also take the heat of the NH-90 fleet. I mean how is it going to get anywhere outside NZ? You don't fly helicopters those sort distances. Use some of the NH-90 as maritime support helo's. Despite what they say fitting one of these in a ANZAC is tight, very tight. Plus the version NZ is buying isn't a naval helicopter which limits its usefulness. They are also With the significant funds saved, I would regenerate the Macchis as LIFT aircraft with a token military capability (guns and rockets) and buy 12 second hand multi-role F16Cs (guns, bombs AMRAAM and Maverick) from the USAF as they replace theirs with the F35. If we were to have a ACF I wouldn't bother wit the macchis. Send out pilots to Australia/Canada for LIF training. The F-16 is the logical choice for a fighter. But as I said I don't think a ACF is affordable or entirely necessary for the NZDF. What the RNZAF shouldn't own aircraft for Flight training of any type up to conversion to type VIP work |
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Sept 14, 2010 18:36:42 GMT 12
A long reply is needed, so I'll break it up. UAVs may be the future. Look at the computer simulations and everything seems as simple as flying a Flightsim programme. Unfortunately, real life is far from a computer screen. Real aeroplanes require dynamic control inputs and for these to be fed thousands of miles you need unhindered satellite access and massive amounts of bandwidth. To then get visual and sensor information back takes even more bandwidth. The computer play where a fleet of Predators are controlled over Afghanistan by a pretty lady in Fort Worth Texas is fantasy. The aeroplanes are indeed "controlled" from there, but the way they are controlled and what they can do is very different to what you see in cyberspace. IE things are a lot less capable than you think. Their place in the current orbat is grossly overstated by the salesfolk. A nation the size of the USA, with a huge C3 and support network, has huge trouble operating them effectively. A small country like NZ does not have the wherewithal to cope with the C3 burden. I have said before, it's all about bandwidth. There is not enough bandwidth in the known spectrum to make a Global Hawk anywhere near as capable as what the computer enhanced (and generated) glossy brochures are saying. And even if there was, NZ wouldn't be able to control the bandwidth or the aeroplane. Besides, what NZ would get for its purchase would be like searching the ocean while looking through a straw. You'd be better off with some mates on the beach using binoculars. On cost, have you seen how big and expensive they are? Don't talk about not having enough defence budget and then bring up Global Hawk, or any other surveillance UAV, as a cost effective alternative. They would set you back billions and billions of kiwi dollars and you'd only get a few. People who don't fly really want to believe in UAVs are the answer to putting pilots in their place. There is actually nothing as dynamically programmable as a swiveling human neck, and there is nothing which can approach the processing power of the human brain. UAVs are probably another 50 years out before automatics and synthetic intelligence can start to scratch the real capability surface. Until then they are a massive development gamble...I don't think NZ is up for the associated risk. |
|
Hoffy
Pilot Officer
Posts: 48
|
Post by Hoffy on Sept 14, 2010 19:18:25 GMT 12
A quick search and I found the following government expenditure info; www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditurewww.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/overview/html/overview_37.htmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expendituresNow I’m no economist , but it shows some interesting facts. Forgive me if this is not exactly perfect from a brief summary perspective. New Zealand (in NZ dollars); 2009/2010 Total government revenue was $59.5 billion Total defence spend was approx. $1.9 billion Total welfare spend was $19.38 billion Australia for the same period ( in Aussie dollars) ; Total government revenue was $ 321 billion Total defence spend was $ 21 billion Total welfare spend was $ 114 billion This is approximately 1.1 % of GDP versus 1.8% So roughly 32% of NZ government spend was welfare versus 35% for Australia!! (I never realised how dependant our two nations are on the social security net - not a criticism BTW) But our level of spending on defence is around 10 times larger in terms of dollars spent. So if we placed the same level of importance on defence spending as Calum would have us believe then why is the difference so huge? Surely by now we would have turned off our fast air capability as well? I also think that even if I moved to NZ , I would never be able to speak on behalf of what the average Kiwi thinks in this regard. At least not for many , many years. The vast majority of Aussies are very proud of the ADF and place a great deal of value on defence capability. Deep down inside we understand the potential for mischief in the region. Better to have a decent insurance policy (just in case).. |
|
|
|
Post by ceskazbrojovka on Sept 14, 2010 22:51:16 GMT 12
It should also be noted that Australia has the 3rd highest military expenditure per capita, behind the US, and Israel. Around $1000 per person I believe.
I couldnt help but notice that someone said that the majority of Australians dont care about defence. That couldnt be further from the truth. I have to agree with Hoffy in that all Australians do value our defence force, maybe not as much as the yanks, but we definately do. It was only back in the 50s and 60s when we werent far off aquiring nuclear weapons (indos), hence the reason for the F-111 purchase.
Anyway, back on topic.
While it may be true that a UAV can never fully replace a manned aircraft, they can certainly hold their own in a hostile environment. A long range, high altitude UAV such as the Global Hawk has great potential for maritime patrol, SAR, reconissance, and even precision strike if needed. These capabilities should not be underestimated, and they will only get better and better as time goes on.
|
|
arclight
Sergeant
BOOBIES ( . ) ( . ) (.)(.) (. )( .)
Posts: 13
|
Post by arclight on Sept 15, 2010 1:05:23 GMT 12
I think it’s a good thing to discuss the current Aussie-Kiwi relationship in this context, so I’m pleased that so many of you guys are seriously considering the implications of the NZ Govt White Paper upon our trans-Tasman relationship. In particular, a number of Aussies & Kiwis have responded to the piece that I submitted yesterday, and some have even put forward various new ideas and concerns of their own – as opposed to simply critiquing my stance, (which kind of misses the point of the exercise).
In my mind, deciding on the equipment that the NZDF will need over the next 25 years in the White Paper is more likely to be consistent with the need to prepare for regional conflicts and other medium-low level challenges (natural disasters, etc), which will undoubtedly arise from time to time – this is opposed to preparing for large-scale ideological conflicts involving massed-conventional weapons such as; the latest fast attack jets, a flotilla of subs, a couple of mini-aircraft carriers and the prospect of D-day landings (although the Aussies are now becoming very well prepared for this extremely unlikely scenario – i.e. Taiwan). However, for our government to follow Australia’s lead, remaining at a Cold War level of readiness and capability, we would literally have to beg, borrow, and steal from retirees, businesses, the education system, health – you know the story – and any government that did that, would be instantly dismissed in the next election, this is also the reality of coalition politics in a country well aware of the cost of war – especially wars that follow a predicatable pattern; usually aren’t justified; and end up turning half the world against you, including many of your own people (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) These types of wars may result in Free Trade Deals, the control of Muslim oil wells, and the spread of American concepts of "Freedom", however whether ithey're really worth it is anybody's guess.
Yesterday I focussed on trying to explain why NZ could no longer continue to walk the same path as our much larger U.S. & Australian allies, but that didn’t mean that we should get rid of our current forces, far from it. In fact, my view of the air force and its composition tends to be very much inline with that of Group Captain Calum, a Kiwi living in Australia who has been involved with both militaries and seems to have a reasonably good understanding of at least the NZ Air force’s critical requirements.
*Elaborating upon some of his views, I tend to agree with him that to ignore developments in UAV technology would be a grave mistake, as the wars and aerial surveillance of today increasingly involve this technology, both as a cost-saving measure that provides wider coverage, but also reduces human risk, etc. In fact, according to a number of credible military sources, not to mention the U.S. DoD, the F-22 will supposedly be the last manned fighter in service with the U.S. airforce – so, for NZ to re-acquire manned fast jet combat capability at it’s final stage of development, e.g. buying up expensive, soon to be obsolescent, second-hand 4th - 4.5 generation fighter jets (F-16s, F-18s – which are basically the only jets we could afford, especially if we want to show support for our ANZUS partners while maintaining some level of interoperability) would obviously be a step in the wrong direction.
*Secondly, to double the number of medium helicopter NH90s (they are comparatively quite large helicopters which use serious juice guys) would be ignoring a number of other key priorities and needs of our airforce (which lacks both modern, reliable 21st century transport/logistics aircraft and will also in the near future need to reinvest in its long-distance surveillance aircraft). Funds might possibly even be on the acquisition of more smaller LUH for training, support, and SAR. This would allow us to free up the NH90s, save on operating costs, and provide the NZDF with a degree of versatility (with the smaller chopper able to operate from the Offshore Patrol Vessels, both enhancing their patrol range, general surveillance capability, while adding extra deterrence NB: armed A109s are used by the South Africans and were also used by the U.S. Coastguard).
The facts at the end of the day are;
Australia is growing richer, while NZ grows poorer – every year. This pretty much means that they can afford to buy shit-loads of armaments, going along with U.S. foreign policy (and the wars that it usually entails), whereas NZ is not able to do that anymore, even if it wanted to. The NZ position seems to be, that due to 35 years of avoiding wars, developing anti-Nuclear policy, protecting the environment, encouraging peace and reconciliation through the UN (a very questionable overly-bureaucratic organisation) and wanting to save the stupid f**king whales, has helped make us, in some ways really quite different from our neighbour. Not at odds with them, but not in the same boat with them anymore.
So in my mind, to harbour expectations of NZ substantially re-equipping, is to be very very naïve and completely unrealistic about how the world is going. The period of “bludging” that has characterised our defence relations with Allies is sure to continue, however, they can hardly expect a small country with the population of a medium city that relies on farming and tourism to be capable of fielding a serious array of advanced military equipment, at least more than we have already. can they?
I guarantee you, that this will probably piss a few people off. apologies if you’re one of those people - I am actually as loyal as they come regarding principles of 'mateship' forged by the ANZACs, and I wish in some ways that we could once again be a united force with an even more serious military, I really do.
|
|
|
|
Post by timmo on Sept 15, 2010 9:16:27 GMT 12
UAVs may be the future...... Possibly one day...but likely not for NZ as they require a whole heap of assumptions which, if I was a military planner, I wouldn't be comfortable making. GPS: We don't own or control the GPS/GLONASS etc etc satellite constellations and we cannot assume that our current allies that do own them will be our allies in a future war. It may well be the opposite. Communications: It is far easier to 'control' a pilot than it is to control a pilot who is controlling an aircraft using communication methods which are somewhat susceptible to attack/disruption....not to mention the split second decisions to fire/not fire are far easier to 'correctly' make the closer you are to the battle. Friendly fire, civilian casualties and even deliberate 'mistakes' are easier to carry out if your only view of the target is through a screen (just as it it is probably easier to press a trigger than it is to drive a dagger into a mans heart) |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Sept 15, 2010 12:01:40 GMT 12
UAVs may be the future. Look at the computer simulations and everything seems as simple as flying a Flightsim programme. Unfortunately, real life is far from a computer screen. Real aeroplanes require dynamic control inputs and for these to be fed thousands of miles you need unhindered satellite access and massive amounts of bandwidth. To then get visual and sensor information back takes even more bandwidth. I’m not interested in predators, but a UAV for long range surveillance of the EEZ. Platforms like this don’t need constant control but can fly programmed routes reducing bandwidth requirements. And yes bandwidth iand access to it is an issue for a country like NZ but to deny that the UAV is becoming more important in countries OoB is ignore the take up and use of them. I have said before, it's all about bandwidth. There is not enough bandwidth in the known spectrum to make a Global Hawk anywhere near as capable as what the computer enhanced (and generated) glossy brochures are saying. And even if there was, NZ wouldn't be able to control the bandwidth or the aeroplane. The global Hawk is pretty capable in its primary role now. I can’t see it getting any worse as time goes on. I’m not talking about a combat platform here (although these will come in the next 30 plus yrs) Besides, what NZ would get for its purchase would be like searching the ocean while looking through a straw And that is different from a manned platform how? On cost, have you seen how big and expensive they are? Don't talk about not having enough defence budget and then bring up Global Hawk, or any other surveillance UAV, as a cost effective alternative. They would set you back billions and billions of kiwi dollars and you'd only get a few. Yes they are expensive to buy especially global hawk, but so are manned platforms. I used Global hawk as an example. There are other (cheaper) options out there. And once in service operating costs are lower. People who don't fly really want to believe in UAVs are the answer to putting pilots in their place. I actually think people realise that soon the weakest link in the aviation chain will be the pilot There is actually nothing as dynamically programmable as a swivelling human neck, and there is nothing which can approach the processing power of the human brain. There’s also nothing as fallible as a human. The human neck has a limited sensor and the human brain can only cope with a certain amount of information. Most aviation accidents are caused by humans. UAVs are probably another 50 years out before automatics and synthetic intelligence can start to scratch the real capability surface. Until then they are a massive development gamble...I don't think NZ is up for the associated risk. Maybe 30 yrs before we see UAV’s eliminating manned platforms most combat roles. As for development gamble I disagree. They have been operated for 10 + years now. Their capabilities are well known. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Sept 15, 2010 12:35:43 GMT 12
. I couldnt help but notice that someone said that the majority of Australians dont care about defence. That couldnt be further from the truth. That was me. Perhaps care is the wrong word. In my experience most just aren’t that interested in it to extent people like us think they are. As there is effectively no difference between the 2 major parties and as Australia is pretty rich, the vast sums expended (and wasted) here on defence just isn’t noticed. Even the majority of people in the defence industry aren’t interested in anything more than the programme that employs them. I have to agree with Hoffy in that all Australians do value our defence force, maybe not as much as the yanks, but we definitely do. Sure, but there is a difference between valuing and being interested in. But I’d argue Kiwis value their defence force just as much as us. It was only back in the 50s and 60s when we werent far off aquiring nuclear weapons (indos), hence the reason for the F-111 purchase. Only, that’s was 50-60 yrs ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Parrotfish on Sept 15, 2010 13:05:16 GMT 12
Gee Calum, stand or office mate! I'd vote for you ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Sept 15, 2010 15:26:04 GMT 12
Gee Calum, stand or office mate! I'd vote for you ;D I'm last person you'd want a representative |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Sept 15, 2010 15:30:00 GMT 12
On UAV's, and apologies as this is a bit of a thread hi jack
|
|
and were did this photo come from?? cleaver photo-editing? 
