Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[corokid66]

Please Dave dont close down this thread - it is a very valuable source of information. Just because we have the odd conceited wannabe military academic and their lithium starved abusive alter-ego it should not mean that the rest of us - sort of suffer. I for one feel more than capable of debating with them without abuse and the majority would be in the same boat - if they descend into abuse yes ban them. If a person attempts to operate duel identities from the same IPS then ban them. My thoughts only. Cheers.

[yogi]

It would appear the trolls are out in force lately.

(Credit to Lucifer for posting this initially on another excellent aviation forum.)
i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/ForumTROLLcartoon.gif

have a look, its a cracker.
;D

[corsair67]

I blame Global Warming^TM for all these split personalities appearing on WoNZ lately. Obviously the hotter weather has damaged their brains.

Personally, I find whenever someone brings "I'm doing blah, blah, blah at university" to an argument, it usually isn't actually true.

In case anyone had missed it: I ain't ever dun been to univurcity niether, and I can sometimes use big wurds two. ;D

Now, please play nicely.

[Dave Homewood]

I thought you go to university every day, Craig? I'll bet you see some right iriots in your job.

[arclight3]

"...I have a feeling that you might struggle to stay away though."
- hoffy

I tend to agree with you Hoffy... one of me is bound to turn-up sooner or later, you can count on it. (insert crazed laughter)

take it it easy guys.

[luke6745]

Dave - there must be a way to block his IP address so he can't just keep creating accounts...

[avroarrow]

Ello new to the forums here but awhile back I did report on New Zealand defence needs for the foreseeable future, and came to the attached documents conclusion. For those who don't wish to go through all of it this what I though would offer New Zealand a credible air defence/ deterrent force, for all services. Also of a side note the medium combat lift transport helicopter or light air transport aircraftcan be disregarded if not political or economically feasible. Final with everyone spewing out concept of massive military spending (by smaller island nations standards), the cost of this force is actual minimal mainly because the production and current use of the above mentioned aircraft reduced those overall needs. I can attach the numbers if anyone every wants them.

New Zealand Naval Air Arm
-8 maritime ASW/ medium lift transport helicopters (NHI NH90 NFH)
-5 basic/advance helicopter trainers (AgustaWestland AW109 Sea Breeze)
-7 maritime/ASW patrol aircraft (Lockheed P-3K II Orion)

Royal New Zealand Air Force
-16/4 multi-role combat aircraft (F/A-18E/F Super Hornet)
-10 advance jet trainers/ light ground attack aircraft (BAE Hawk 132)
-16 basic/advance turbo prop trainer aircraft (Pilatus PC-21)
-5 heavy air lift transporter aircraft (Boeing C-130J-30 Super Hercules)
-3 multi role transport/ tanker aircraft (Boeing KC-767 Stratotanker)
-4 multi-engine training/ utility transport aircraft (Beechcraft B200 King Airs)
-2 VIP/ utility transport aircraft (Bombardier Global Express)
-8 light air transport aircraft (Alenia C-27J Spartan)

New Zealand Army Air Corps
-12, combat utility transport helicopter (NHI NH90 TTH)
-10, light assault transport/basic/advance helicopter trainers (AgustaWestland AW109 LUH)
-8, medium combat lift transport helicopters (AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin)
-6, medium altitude long endurance tactical use UAV (Denel Aerospace Systems Bateleur)
-12, low altitude medium endurance tactical use UAV (RUAG ADS-90 MK II Ranger)

[avroarrow]

lol here is the attachment ;D

Attachments:

[phil]

Oct 2, 2010 22:31:00 GMT 12 arclight2 said:

I was probably the first and the last actual military academic that will visit this site.

Well 21 is very young to be considering yourself an 'actual military academic'. (That's the date in your profile, so your either 21, or lying).

I note earlier that you said:

am not strongly bias (in being either ex-air force, or ex-military myself - unlike other people...

and

So based on these personal connections, as well as numerous conversations on a weekly basis with defense historians / experts / analysts

and then went on to say:

and when I get my doctorate I plan to make a career out of teaching it.

So to paraphrase, what you are saying is that: 'I have no real life experience of the military, but I know a bloke who does, and I've read a lot of books'.

I'd suggest toning down your own trumpet blowing, if you spent a bit less time justifying your own 'expertise' you might get taken a little more seriously.

[Bruce]

This thread is just Troll bait - maybe its time to close it until something actually happens.....

[30sqnatc]

My gost what happened last night The earthquake after shocks must have got to our Canterbury student.

I hope that in a few years the Government will not be hiring him as a consultant on defence policy

[nige]

Good grief, I must lead a simple life, I wake up this morning to read all the comments from 2100 hours onwards last night to find that another person is using multiple identities! And wha.. ***** is also sir bean? I thought there were some similarities such as "pollies won't allow ACF to return" etc but otherwise had no idea. I wonder whether arclight and sir bean then are the same person as well (and have moved location)!! What about that Perardua character, is he also one and the same (seeing they seem to like insulting the senior forum members etc)? Who cares anyway at the end of the day I suppose.

But I agree with CoroKid, this thread shouldn't have to be shut down because of 1 or 2 nutters, many regular forum members here can take the debate back to them and do so politely.

Although I totally sympathise with Dave in that these 1 or 2 nutters are insulting Dave's intelligence periodically - when clearly there was no need as Dave was largely keeping out of the heated debates etc.

Anyway if the thread is shut down then these nutters win - how do we know they're not activists trying to cause trouble by stirring up regular members to lose their cool (and get the thread closed down etc)? How else to explain those bizarre split personality posts!!

[obiwan27]

Oct 2, 2010 22:44:17 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Thanks arclight/paulwhite/arclight2/Hame for showing us what valuable input a highly educted military academic can offer the country. Err... not a lot.

Your third account has also been terminated in case you decided to come back.

Interesting how you are accusing your own alter-ego of a serious psychosis, you should get that checked out.

Dave ;D ;D ;D lol. corokid66 gets a years supply of virtual chocolate fish for his rebuttal of arclight's original points. From what arclight, et al said it seemed like he was one of my fellow UC students with too much time on his hands.
Sorry that someone like that has caused so much upset to the forum as most of us adults can conduct ourselves pretty well, even if we have a different point of view.
You only have to look back to recent history to see that the pressures of a growing population, the ability to feed them and declining resources in your own back yard can create a situation where a country in the Asia-Pacific region chooses a military option to get what it wants. That may or may not happen, but you want to be prepared in case something did kick off.

[Dave Homewood]

One thing that is extremely admirable is how the regular members don't lose their cool and lash back at the troublemakers, they come back ith calm, rational debate that often stimies them with superior intellect. I appreciate that. It could so easily all kick off and start to look like WIX or Pprune, but it doesn't.

[hawkeye]

We should play the old fashioned Kiwi way - the ball not the man. I like Nige's comments on page 40, good summary.

[corokid66]

Actually Dave - I have had second thoughts. Maybe you should suspend the thread until the White Paper comes out. I have just reviewed the last few pages and after reading a post from "avroarrow" I realised that it is getting simply silly and there are a few nutters out there. Cheers

[kiwiscanfly]

I have made an effort to stay well clear of some of the annoyance made my certain individuals recently but let's all bear in mind the review is not far from being released these individuals know this and are just stirring up trouble. I am sure many would like to bring this debate back on track as there are many people with interesting things to say here and recently have not been able to. So on the topic of the review do people here think that we will see a jump in capability or refining and a small expansion of existing capabilities.

[luke6745]

I think we could see the Macchis back in service by the end of next year. Doing the Batch II upgrade would cheaper than buying new advanced trainers. So I think that since the National party want to save money, it is quite likely. Unless we lease some advanced trainers from somewhere. Also more A109s or NH90s which John Key has already hinted at. Replacement of the Kingairs with more capable transport aircraft (CN-235/295). Possibly creating a marine battalion, you could possibly form this at Papakura as it is close to the Devonport and Whenuapai.

I wonder if anyone put submissions in for some light tanks? Even if there were submissions for it, I would doubt it would happen anyway.

[nige]

Oct 3, 2010 13:42:36 GMT 12 corokid66 said:

Actually Dave - I have had second thoughts. Maybe you should suspend the thread until the White Paper comes out. I have just reviewed the last few pages and after reading a post from "avroarrow" I realised that it is getting simply silly and there are a few nutters out there. Cheers

I'm easy either way - in some respects there's nothing to gain (keeping this thead open) until the review comes out - as all we can do (me included) in the meantime is speculate.

On the other hand, the suspicious side of me is curious to know if these recent "entities" are an individual having a bit of fun (at our expense), or someone with "health" problems, or some activist type undertaking a disinformation campaign.

Eg, arclight, there's no way at (supposedly) 21 years of age he'd be studying a masters degree. So I doubt he is 21 or even at Canterbury Uni studying the military (nor even have relations in the RNZAF etc). Therefore, what's his motivation in advocating for NOT a return of the ACF? If he was a defence supporter who is being "realistic" about the political situation, then why go on and on about it etc. Then again there's something to be gained in changing "our" mindsets here to accept no more ACF etc. So in some respects this thread is useful in drawing these "nutters" in - so they can be rebuffed. Good practice for us all for when we campaign against future political interference in defence (if a future govt keeps trying to downgrade the NZDF by employing such spin etc) ;D

[adzze]

In Stuff this morning Wayne Mapp is signalling the general thrust of the paper, which will now be published "next month"...:

www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4193177/5b-bill-ahead-for-ships-aircraft

"[...]The Government would also need about $1.2b to replace the Hercules transport planes in 2020 and between $1.6b and $2b to replace the P3 Orion aircraft in 2025 with some other long-range maritime surveillance aircraft. [...]"

No mention of an ACF or recommissioning the Aermachhis - at least not yet... the former would likely be signalled along with the other big ticket items I imagine, if it was on the table.