|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Nov 2, 2009 20:16:07 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 2, 2009 23:16:43 GMT 12
And that will be the reality until the day that the combat air support does not show up when it is required. |
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 3, 2009 6:54:18 GMT 12
And that will be the reality until the day that the combat air support does not show up when it is required. ...or the NZ soldier, having never actually practiced Forward Air Control with real fighter aircraft, due to NZ having no air combat aircraft of its own to practice with, calls in friendly air support on his/her own position and kills himself and his entire patrol. Lets hope that NEVER happens, but it does have a higher probability today than was the case 10 years ago when the NZ Army regularly practiced FAC with RNZAF Skyhawks and Macchis. Some things you can't simulate on a computer... |
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Nov 3, 2009 7:58:12 GMT 12
We can afford a new strike wing if the Government goes ahead and mines the gold and other minerals beng wasted under National Parks. I'm all for that idea. I'm going to disagree with you Dave. Its not a matter of the Govt not having enough money to fund defense, its a matter of the Govt choosing not to fund defense. Since we spend under 1% of our GDP on defense means that doubling it wouldn't cause too much pressure on the overall budget. As Phil82 said, we spend a heck of a lot more on welfare... |
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 3, 2009 8:13:24 GMT 12
Computer Simulation for JTACs is the norm everywhere and is proving to be highly effective in training "FACs". But like all simulation, it enhances but does not replace live work.
The A-4 crew were extremely good (read elite) at training us in FAC work, simulating foreign language pilots, deliberate miss targeting etc.
The reality today is that its mainly US JTACs that handle their air assets (there are other nation teams credited but small in number).
Helo stuff is very different, the type of fire control with helo is within the reach of most commanders who are at DLOC. (Normally a radio brief and fire control using traditional methods -no different than a controlling a tank). (I've done this and its a hoot - talking to the crew via their phone then blocking ears for the inevitable pain).
I would be more concerned with this (and I have to be careful here):
A kiwi YO sees two afghans on a hill looking at them whilst on patrol. Said YO rings up and starts a fast Air strike on two baddies. A more senior and thankfully more mature person points out that perhaps a patrol with two snipers, 40mm, C-9 and Automatic Rifles maybe more than a match to two unarmed civilians. Fast Air canceled en route.
What would have happened if the strike had gone through?
What would be the consequences of a leak to the public?
Lets face it Uncle Sam being big and therefore bad would get it in the neck.
Even if nothing bad leaked out, the US are sensitive to this sort of thing - it costs money and if its not really justified they don't want it used. They are trying to limit use as it has geopolitical implications. So if worse case above occurred, - how likely would we be getting air support in the future? I'm sure the US being as good as they wouldn't turn it off, just control its use alot more (read treat us like children - or the military term is non swimmers). Another option would be to put us in a safe area were we are likely to be ok - like Bamyan perhaps? Don't read too much into the current contacts its drug and gun runners getting annoyed not Terry teliban. Two contacts in 5 yrs doesn't really count with Helmund
Above scenario anecdotal.
How would a comprehensive approach to air power mitigate the above? By bringing in a culture of controlling Airborne Kinetic effects appropriately as part of routine training not DLOC for Select few. Giving our allies and friend confidence that that we are professional players not non swimmers.
The Drop-shorts (ooops RNZA) are pining for some form of airborne delivery capability. When the P-3s starting dropping 500 pounders the Army called their bluff and asked if they could use the P-3 to drop bombs. The truth came out that the bomb aiming capability of the P-3 is probably less than an Avro ........Lancaster.
If you are going to do this you need a high end UAV, AC-130, or descent fast mover. Not C-130 Daisy cutter, P-3 Bomber or Cessna 172 Flour Power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 3, 2009 9:33:38 GMT 12
Just a thought chaps - A lot of the technical jargon on this thread is well beyond my comprehension, even though I was in the RNZAF. Gawd knows what the average civvie thinks reading this thread, and yet they're the ones we need to convince about the merits of bringing back the capabilities and equipment. Plainer English may help win hearts and minds of the voting public.
|
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 3, 2009 12:07:34 GMT 12
My bad
DLOC = Deployable level of Capability
JTAC = Joint terminal Attack Co-ordinator
YO = Young Officer
FAC = Forward Air Controller - now called JTAC
RNZA = Royal New Zealand Artillery
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 3, 2009 17:11:05 GMT 12
Mike, out of interest do you guys sometimes find that there are bombs that don't go off when dropped? So often when talking to veterans of WWII who were attacking subs and boats, they'll say that they dropped them perfectly and watched them simply bounce off the hull and not explode. I've heard that from pilots or crew of Swordfish, Hudsons and Venturas. I just wondered if this sort of thing still occurs?
|
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Nov 3, 2009 21:16:50 GMT 12
And that will be the reality until the day that the combat air support does not show up when it is required. yep. and thats really one of the main points isnt it. Is it really worth saving a couple hundred million if it can potentially put troops at risk? I think not. |
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 3, 2009 21:53:49 GMT 12
Mikek,
My point on the P-3 (absolutley awesome strategic asset) was that some in the RNZAF wrongly gave the impression that it could. Coms down to the whole overland recce thing with the P-3 which will very interesting to see how that pans out.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Nov 3, 2009 22:04:21 GMT 12
My bad DLOC = Deployable level of Capability JTAC = Joint terminal Attack Co-ordinator YO = Young Officer FAC = Forward Air Controller - now called JTAC RNZA = Royal New Zealand Artillery You out acronimed yourself. Only 4 out of 5 for that test  DLOC = 'Directed Level of Capability' which by the way is not the highest level as you suggest. See the glossary in www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2009/nzdf-annual-report-2009.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Nov 3, 2009 22:16:41 GMT 12
...or the NZ soldier, having never actually practiced Forward Air Control with real fighter aircraft, due to NZ having no air combat aircraft of its own to practice with, calls in friendly air support on his/her own position and kills himself and his entire patrol. Hmmmm. The Navy and P-3s practice anti-submarine warfare without NZ having submarines. Navy practice counter air evolutions without NZ having maritime strike aircraft. Artillery practice Regimental fire missions without NZ owning a regiment to fire within. I'm not saying it is right but your suggestion is hardly a valid conclusion given the reality of the current Vote Defence. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 3, 2009 23:01:54 GMT 12
I guess the key requirement when applying for the NZDF now, based on that info Paul, is that they must have very vivid imaginations. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 3, 2009 23:29:20 GMT 12
OMG! Dave you have hit the nail on the head with humour! The next version of stealth is imagination! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 4, 2009 7:10:36 GMT 12
30Sqn ATC
DLOC = Directed Level of capability. What a hoot I've heard heaps of people refer to it as deployable -for years. Just goes to show how you can get it so wrong sometimes.
The point I was trying to make was that if a commander is at DLOC, they should be able to do an all arms call for fire .
You also forgot the biggest delusion in the NZDF that a Haka is going to stop bullets.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 4, 2009 9:06:33 GMT 12
Hmmmm. The Navy and P-3s practice anti-submarine warfare without NZ having submarines. Navy practice counter air evolutions without NZ having maritime strike aircraft. Artillery practice Regimental fire missions without NZ owning a regiment to fire within. I'm not saying it is right but your suggestion is hardly a valid conclusion given the reality of the current Vote Defence. So do you think the NZDF is more capable and prepared for actual armed conflict without an Air Combat Wing? I think not. As for funding you are right - that is the crux of the problem. However some of the funding priorities of the last Gov't were not money well spent in my opinion and had things been different you would still have an ACF to at least train with, even if it wasn't at DLOC/OLOC. That would be a better situation than what we have now. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 6, 2009 9:04:06 GMT 12
Sorry for bringing this forward again 30sqnatc This was as a result of skyhawkdon intimating that not performing realistic training would lead to mistakes in battle. I absolutely concur with skyhawkdon. 30sqnatc, I know where you are coming from but read what you are saying again. "We don't have anything, but we still do training as if we have something." The follow on is, "We don't really know what we are doing in peacetime, but that's okay because when the bombs start falling we'll all pull together and make things right." You need to have a second wave of people who may learn from the total annihilation of the first wave to be able to sustain such a poor defence posture. Justifying an unsatisfactory state of affairs because defence spending is too low takes you right back to some advice I gave here earlier. To accept where you are allows only 2 paths...fix it or sell it. Take the NZ$1 million each and get out of there!! Let's face it guys, such negativity and resignation is not worthy of you, but if you are going to give in here is the justification. Singapore and Sydney have bigger populations and economies than NZ, and the defence forces in each small area (compared to NZ) are several magnitudes larger than NZDF, so now is the time to bail and move to Sydney. Your NZ$1 million will set you up nicely in a good Bondi street with only an AU$200K mortgage...  |
|
|
|
Post by flycookie on Nov 6, 2009 12:08:42 GMT 12
Oldnavy, as imaginative as your $1 million per Kiwi scheme may be, I cannot help but notice that you suggest the US government fund this arrangement. Please be advised that should that come to pass, I expect you pony up my share of US taxes which are earmarked for this!
More seriously, and being mindful of the limits of the grey area of overstepping the line into politics, I think one of Helen's statistical allies could be used to get things up and away again.
Namely, her decision was, apart from a predictable chorus of brief and ill-organised outrage from walrus moustachioed airforce vets in blazers, met with overwhelming apathy.
Without that, the government could not and would not have risked scrubbing the fast jets.
By precisely the same measure, any stated policy by a different government to resurrect FJ-world would, I expect, be met by equal apathy - IE the only noisy opposition to it would be from pinko-green wingnuts, who will not survive any of the changes to MMP which the new NZ leadership are advocating.
This makes the whole proposition do-able, at least at a blatant political level, and has the delicious prospect of slapping Helen's legacy in her face with her very own ammo!
You lot really need to make some well orchestrated and ongoing noise about this, and before anyone posts a rejoinder that as a typical, loud-mouthg Aussie I should mind my own f**king business, I can only say that if I didn't have genuine concern for NZ - in all sorts of ways - then I wouldn't give a stuff about any of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 6, 2009 13:56:12 GMT 12
Namely, her decision was, apart from a predictable chorus of brief and ill-organised outrage from walrus moustachioed airforce vets in blazers, met with overwhelming apathy. . Having known many of the people you describe, I can assure you none wore blazers or had moustaches; still don't. Nor was their response either brief or ill-organised, in fact the paper they produced, at their own expense, was widely distributed. They were all very senior officers of CAF and CDF status, not your average RSA barfly. |
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 6, 2009 14:13:46 GMT 12
I checked out the Budget to see where all our money goes. Of course some of it is necessary but some of it is just pap. This spending is where our Air Combat Force has gone.
Vote Arts and Culture gets $272,862,000 of which $68,500,000 goes towards the Screen Production Incentive Fund to doll out cash to all the no talent arty farty types to make movies no one wants to or does watch. If they were any good like Peter Jackson they could do it on ability alone.
Vote Community and Volunteers gets $44,989,000 of which $22.5 million dollars is used up just to doll out 17.7 million on crap such as disarmament education, paying volunteers to learn about being a volunteer and being paid to be volunteering, as well as writing screeds of crap to justify more money to improve “our social cultural well being.”
Pacific Development Assistance will get $755,801,000 over the next 3 years 2009-2012. The budget for climate change is year is $502,744,000.
And of Course $19,860,697,000 will go to the Ministry of Social development. There is literally tens of millions that could be cut from that budget allocation alone to support an Air Combat Force. We spend more on the DPB each year than Defence after GST and the capital charge.
Of course we can afford an air combat force of 14-16 aircraft that the 2000 Quigley report said was optimal.
|
|
