|
|
Post by timmo on Oct 16, 2009 14:59:27 GMT 12
What is peoples opinion of the JSF? (I personally think its an overrated sky whale, but hey thats just me....) Even if it is, im sure the yanks won't let the truth get in the way of some more arms sales  |
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Oct 16, 2009 21:42:27 GMT 12
yes indeed that thread was certainly full of something.. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by flycookie on Oct 17, 2009 15:17:42 GMT 12
Even if it is, I'm sure the yanks won't let the truth get in the way of some more arms sales Timmo, I couldn't agree more with your reasoning, and your grasp of facts is beyond reproach. The primary F-35 operator will, of course, be the Great Satanic States of America, with, in second place, its lickspittle First Silver Stick of Satanism Pursuivant, sometimes referred to by its Dark Lord's name - the UK. Of course, Satan's Little Helper, aka "Australia" is in there as well. That wicked triumvirate is backed up mephistophelian elves including, at the time of this writing, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, Turkey and Norway, with Israel and Singapore. It goes without saying that not one of these countries is, has or ever will be capable of making their own decisions about their strategic and tactical air defence requirements, but are all the guileless and hopelessly moronic dupes of American salesmen. Equally, when I think of evil and its manifestations as visited on mankind, I immediately know that the Great Satan and his slick salesmen are wholly responsible for absolutely all of it. What a pity the dumb countries involved with the F-35 aren't as clever as you and I, and seek the loving hand and kind guidance of, say, Russia, North Korea and China. The munificent benevolence, influence, political behaviour and example of those supplier nations is beyond my ability to praise to an adequately high manner. Be that as it may, I'm with you, Tovarich Timmo. |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Oct 17, 2009 19:48:43 GMT 12
Russia certainly don't sell over-rated sky whales. They just sell you aircraft that contain parts that the Russians can't guarantee that you will be able to get in 6 month's time when you need to replace them, and engines that have a time between overhaul of less than half that of current Western designed jet engines.  Although, one positive is that you don't generally need specialised tooling to work on them - a $4 screwdriver, a $2 adjustable spanner and a lump hammer are perfectly fine. ;D Yep, there will no doubt be some issues with the F-35 that will become apparent once it enters service, but I have faith that those issues will be mere bumps along a long road of faithful service that these aircraft will provide to the nations that choose to purchase them. |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Oct 17, 2009 21:34:00 GMT 12
Just found this on the internet, and thought it is interesting to see what Egypt will be paying for 24 F-16, plus assorted extras: www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2009/Egypt_%2009-34.pdfDefense Security Cooperation Agency NEWS RELEASE On the web: www.dsca.mil Media/Public Contact: (703) 601-3859 Transmittal No. 09-34. Egypt –F-16C/D Block 50/52 AircraftWASHINGTON, October 9, 2009 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress today of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Egypt of 24 F-16C/D Block 50/52 Aircraft and associated parts weapons and equipment, as well as other Non-MDE equipment and construction services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $3.2Billion.[ (My emphasis - C67) The Government of Egypt has requested a possible sale of: •24 F-16C/D Block 50/52 Aircraft installed with either the F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129 Increased Performance Engines (IPE) and APG-68(V)9 radars •6 F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129 IPE spare engines •6 APG-68(V)9 spare radar sets •60 LAU-129/A Common Rail Launchers; •28 AN/APX-113 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) Systems without Mode IV •28 M61 20mm Vulcan Cannons Non-MDE Equipment •28 AN/ALQ-211 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Systems (AIDEWS); or Advanced Countermeasures Electronic Systems (ACES) which includes the AN/ALQ-187 Electronic Warfare System and the AN/ALR-93 Radar Warning Receiver •28 AN/ARC-238 Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGAR) radios without HAVE QUICK I/II •4 F-9120 Advanced Airborne Reconnaissance Systems or DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods •28 Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Embedded GPS/Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) with Standard Positioning Service commercial code only •12 AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER Advanced Targeting Pods or AN/AAQ-28LITENING Targeting Pods •24 pairs of Conformal Fuel Tanks •28 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems Also included: Base construction, support equipment, software development/integration, tanker support, ferry services, Cartridge Actuated Devices/Propellant Actuated Devices (CAD/PAD), repair and return, modification kits, spares and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $3.2 billion. The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by enhancing the capability of Egypt, a major non-NATO ally. Delivery of this weapon system will greatly enhance Egypt’s interoperability with the U.S., making it a more valuable partner in an important area of the world, as well as supporting Egypt’s legitimate need for its own self-defense. The proposed sale will allow the Egyptian Air Force to modernize its aging air force by acquiring new fighter aircraft, thereby enabling Egypt to support both its own air defense needs and coalition operations. The country will have no difficulty absorbing this new capability into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in Fort Worth, Texas. The proposed sale also involves the following companies: Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control Dallas, Texas Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training, Fort Worth, Texas and Support BAE Advanced Systems Greenland, New York Boeing Corporation Seattle, Washington Boeing Integrated Defense Systems St Louis, Missouri (three locations) Long Beach, California San Diego, California Raytheon Company Lexington, Massachusetts (two locations) Goleta, California Northrop-Grumman Electro-Optical Systems Garland, Texas Northrop-Grumman Electronic Systems Baltimore, Maryland Pratt & Whitney United Technology Company East Hartford, Connecticut General Electric Aircraft Engines Cincinnati, Ohio Goodrich ISR Systems Danbury, Connecticut L3 Communications Arlington, Texas ITT Defense Electronics and Services McLean, Virginia Symetrics Industries Melbourne, Florida There are no known offset agreements in connection with this proposed sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Egypt involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management, and training over a period of 15 years. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 17, 2009 21:51:56 GMT 12
"$3.2Billion"
Is that US dollars or Egyptian dollars?
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Oct 17, 2009 22:07:52 GMT 12
Dave, that'd be in US$.
All major credit cards gladly accepted........ ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Oct 18, 2009 8:48:31 GMT 12
Makes our 28 F-16s look mighty cheap doesn't it ($300M capital outlay up front plus US$13.5M p.a. lease cost). Granted these ones will be a lot more capable than ours would have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Oct 18, 2009 9:22:20 GMT 12
"$3.2Billion" Is that US dollars or Egyptian dollars? Gasp - thats just the purchase price. Then you have to find the money to operate them. |
|
|
|
Post by mstokes on Oct 18, 2009 9:51:48 GMT 12
;D Anyone who has seen the display sequence of an SU-35 can certainly see that there is a bit of 'Moscow swan lake ballet' thinking in terms of what the aircraft can do. Phenomenal power to weight ratio and unbelievable maneuveurablity... but it does come with the limited engine hours issue. Still a couple in NZ colours would be very appealing to me, and would ensure we are invited to every airshow around I am sure though that an IL-76 can be dispatched on the month to deliver some reconditioned engines It will be interesting to see the JSF come up against the aircraft of Russian origin, after all it is stealth and agility vs what are large numbers of heavily armed missile platforms. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Oct 18, 2009 10:27:12 GMT 12
Sadly, any discussion on Defence comes down to money.
On a positive note, this thread has introduced at least a dozen excellent plans to get the RNZAF back in business.
Doubly sadly, read back through this predominately sensible thread and you'll see patriotic New Zealanders blanching at the potential cost of supporting a jointly manned ANZAC F35 squadron. If you shy away from this, the cheapest way forward, then discussion on 24 of the latest model F16s fresh off the production line (along with accessories) going to a poor 3rd World country (Egypt) is rather "by the by," as is discussion about Gripen, Hawk, T50, Chinese stuff or anything else raised positively here.
New Zealand affords an Army and a Navy... and an Air Force which duplicates the capability of the largely government owned national flag carrier, Air New Zealand, in that it can carry people to places provided the environment is benign. Why do you support 2 government owned transport capabilities?
There is just too much recessiveness, depression and resignation in this debate. If having a real Air Force costs more than you can afford, then quit wasting money on the other stuff!
My understanding and observation is that New Zealand is a great place, and that the people are filled with national pride. Getting back a Fighter capability should be seen as essential by anyone with even the most basic interest in military matters, and anyone who disputes that should be tried for treason. Of course it will cost billions!
If money is the problem, I have a suggestion. Talk to America. Right now they need a confidence boost, a simple non-military campaign and a benign adventure holiday destination. Notwithstanding recent activity, Americans tend not to invade people. Save them that problem by asking them for a NZ$1 million for each Kiwi and selling them the country!
It won't be your country anymore so you'll have to leave, but then the problem will be America's and you'll all be rich, albeit stateless millionaires! For America, already recording massive deficits and some huge costs associated with international "police actions," a price tag of only NZ$4 trillion would be just another drop in the ocean!
In my experience, the Kiwis I know have been honest, proud and brave. You have a great country, so it's time you did something to keep it! US$3.2 billion for 24 F16Cs and Ds might be expensive, so pick a cheaper option...but pick something! For the RNZAF in particular, and the nation in general, it's like you are sitting at a cross roads where you can turn in any direction and finish up in a better place than where you are right now... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Oct 18, 2009 11:33:29 GMT 12
Sadly, any discussion on Defence comes down to money. On a positive note, this thread has introduced at least a dozen excellent plans to get the RNZAF back in business. Doubly sadly, read back through this predominately sensible thread and you'll see patriotic New Zealanders blanching at the potential cost of supporting a jointly manned ANZAC F35 squadron. If you shy away from this, the cheapest way forward, then discussion on 24 of the latest model F16s fresh off the production line (along with accessories) going to a poor 3rd World country (Egypt) is rather "by the by," as is discussion about Gripen, Hawk, T50, Chinese stuff or anything else raised positively here. New Zealand affords an Army and a Navy... and an Air Force which duplicates the capability of the largely government owned national flag carrier, Air New Zealand, in that it can carry people to places provided the environment is benign. Why do you support 2 government owned transport capabilities? There is just too much recessiveness, depression and resignation in this debate. If having a real Air Force costs more than you can afford, then quit wasting money on the other stuff! My understanding and observation is that New Zealand is a great place, and that the people are filled with national pride. Getting back a Fighter capability should be seen as essential by anyone with even the most basic interest in military matters, and anyone who disputes that should be tried for treason. Of course it will cost billions! If money is the problem, I have a suggestion. Talk to America. Right now they need a confidence boost, a simple non-military campaign and a benign adventure holiday destination. Notwithstanding recent activity, Americans tend not to invade people. Save them that problem by asking them for a NZ$1 million for each Kiwi and selling them the country! It won't be your country anymore so you'll have to leave, but then the problem will be America's and you'll all be rich, albeit stateless millionaires! For America, already recording massive deficits and some huge costs associated with international "police actions," a price tag of only NZ$4 trillion would be just another drop in the ocean! In my experience, the Kiwis I know have been honest, proud and brave. You have a great country, so it's time you did something to keep it! US$3.2 billion for 24 F16Cs and Ds might be expensive, so pick a cheaper option...but pick something! For the RNZAF in particular, and the nation in general, it's like you are sitting at a cross roads where you can turn in any direction and finish up in a better place than where you are right now... ;D Nice sentiments there ON, but that's all they are, sentiments! Without the political will, and Helengrad destroyed that, there is no way any comment on any thread in this site is going to make any difference. It's pie in the sky. Interesting perhaps, but of little value in the real world of Defence. David Lange and Labour did enormous damage to the reputation of this country in terms of our mutual friends, and Helen Clark simply continued in an act of sheer spite. She was a student protester when the A4s were delivered, and no doubt took a great deal of satisfaction in removing them from service. No one else in this region thinks that this prosperous little country with a proud military history cannot make a difference. Of course we have to work in collective security, but that is true of everyone really, including Australia. The point is not only who is prepared to stand up when there is a crisis, and if we opt out out of maintaining an effective force, we opt out of many other aspects, but that is what the NZ Government decide to do. All the hand-wringing in the world is not going to change that. The disbandment of the air combat component was justified, rather oddly and certainly naively,on the grounds it hadn't been used since the Indonesian Confrontation. If combat was is what is meant by being used, then we didn't use a battalion for a generation before East Timor came along, but no one has suggested that as an argument for abolishing the infantry! I have had insurance on my marital home for forty years, and never had a fire or made a claim, and on that basis Helen would have me cancel my policy. Many people are uncomfortablly aware that we are not pulling our weight, and that particularly applies to old farts like me because I know that feeling that comes from working on a combined military environment and knowing we concede nothing in terms of quality. Man for man, and the occasional Sheila, we are as good as they come. But we can sit hear for ever, or at least till the Wallabies win a game in NZ, discussing fanciful scenarios of what would be nice if we had them, but it ain't gonna happen folks! I have no doubt whatsoever, not a skerrick, that in the current climate of relations with the US if NZ asked the US for the loaned of a couple of dozen F-16s or whatever, then we would get them,. But there would be strings attached, and we would be beholden to the Americans, and there is no way that is ever going to happen. End of! In 2002, not long after the decision by Helen Clark to disband the Strike Component, a paper was produced by a number of very experienced and well-respected former Defence Chiefs, including Dick Bolt, a wartime Pathfinder, Chief of Air Staff, and Chief of Defence Staff; Gerald Hensley, a former Sec Def: Ewen Jamieson, a former Chief of Air Staff; Robin Klitscher, former RNZAF pilot on Vietnam vet:Denis McLean, another former Def Sec; and Somerford Teagle, a former CNS and CDS. They were collectively dismissed by Helen as "geriatrics". |
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Oct 18, 2009 13:39:43 GMT 12
Hi phil82! Reads like you agree with me? What you have reported doesn't make the govt direction right, and that's why you all vote. It may take some time to change things for the better, but changes must be made. If things really can't change for the RNZAF, then maybe the NZ$1 million offer is the way to go? My suggestion was to turn in any direction because where you are now is not right.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 18, 2009 13:53:50 GMT 12
We all voted against the last Government though Dave, and ended up with a new Government with pretty much the same attitude towards the strike wing....
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Oct 18, 2009 14:13:40 GMT 12
Hi phil82! Reads like you agree with me? What you have reported doesn't make the govt direction right, and that's why you all vote. It may take some time to change things for the better, but changes must be made. If things really can't change for the RNZAF, then maybe the NZ$1 million offer is the way to go? My suggestion was to turn in any direction because where you are now is not right. Always agreeable mate! Of course the Government action taken was wrong, and the reasons behind the muddled thinking were wrong, but in the end they were the government led by a vindictive and autocratic PM, but still the Government. When the current PM John Key was doing his pre-election rounds, I bumped into him, and he put his hand out, and I shook it. I looked him straight in the eye and asked him if he was the man to rid New Zealand of the "nanny-state'" Labour mob, and assured me he was! Well, he did, and I'm pleased he did, but the damage was done. We no longer have the resources to run a strike force; all that accumulation of expertise has gone. Most of 2 Sqn, when they came back from Nowra, hopped back across the ditch to the RAAF. There was an RAF Gp Capt based in Singapore came to Wellington to take as many pilots as wanted to go, and he got a few, as did the Aussies. Good on 'em. The report I mentioned was produced by some of the best Defence brains in NZ, and possibly Australasia, yet they were dismissed out of hand with a sarcastic "geriatric generals" from Helen Clark. |
|
|
|
Post by flycookie on Oct 18, 2009 14:41:53 GMT 12
Why not add a small symposium element to the next Wonzaf get-together? Wouldn't take much for a handful of members (and any others) to put some words together and open up for questions and comments. Would take effort to get media interest in such a shindig, but not much. Given the intelligence and passion shown here, I believe there enough fellas to make that work. Even making a little noise is better than no noise at all on this issue, and you never know how it might develop. Some members might need to start their diets now for their debuts on the telly..... Just a thought.  .............................. Also, many thanks to Moderator Dave and Corsair67 for not deleting my previous post on this thread. When I checked-in this arvo I fully exptected it have been deemed unwelcome and/or inappropriate and thence removed. |
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Oct 18, 2009 15:23:45 GMT 12
It has been clear under National for a few years that no strike wing let alone a squadron would ever be back. The simple reason for National is economic whereas Labour it was always purely ideological. We have had an economy with a decade of extremely low productivity, a false wealth boom built on property speculation that has burst, high spending levels on the social side of the fiscal agenda (such as ACC out of control) that are now coming home to hurt us to the tune of $250 million a week, a government that spent very unwisely on defence based on parochial feel good factors and not on strategic requirements, a media that are simply parliamentary gossip columnists and are not educated enough to understand complex issues such as defence in the Asia-pacific context, and finally politicians that are as equally unsophisticated in getting the simple message that a defence force exists not just to defence territorial sovereignty but also ( and significantly in New Zealand’s case) economic sovereignty through the international engagement of trade, defence and other external relationships. Which is ironic since all we ever focus on is the dollar factor when it comes to defence. The double irony is New Zealand’s achilles heal in that we are a country predicated on saving money on defence, in our wider region which is becoming more highly strung strategically. Any moderate level of trouble in this region affecting sea-lanes and airspaces would create huge stress factors on the NZ economy due to massive disruption of export trade and shipping movements which may last some months. The true cost of having an insufficient investment in regional defence as a strategic hedge would make the deterrence price of a squadron of combat aircraft spread over a decade seem minute. Sadly, it seems to be a lesson that us Kiwi’s are hell bent on learning the hard way.
|
|
|
|
Post by flycookie on Oct 18, 2009 15:55:54 GMT 12
Corokid, that sounds like a good introduction to a symposium paper. The fightback has to start somewhere, and as I understand Kiwis pride themselves on their "mucking in," your making this noise of righteous anger would be well placed in a public setting. |
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Oct 18, 2009 16:04:45 GMT 12
It has been clear under National for a few years that no strike wing let alone a squadron would ever be back. The simple reason for National is economic whereas Labour it was always purely ideological. We have had an economy with a decade of extremely low productivity, a false wealth boom built on property speculation that has burst, high spending levels on the social side of the fiscal agenda (such as ACC out of control) that are now coming home to hurt us to the tune of $250 million a week, a government that spent very unwisely on defence based on parochial feel good factors and not on strategic requirements, a media that are simply parliamentary gossip columnists and are not educated enough to understand complex issues such as defence in the Asia-pacific context, and finally politicians that are as equally unsophisticated in getting the simple message that a defence force exists not just to defence territorial sovereignty but also ( and significantly in New Zealand’s case) economic sovereignty through the international engagement of trade, defence and other external relationships. Which is ironic since all we ever focus on is the dollar factor when it comes to defence. The double irony is New Zealand’s achilles heal in that we are a country predicated on saving money on defence, in our wider region which is becoming more highly strung strategically. Any moderate level of trouble in this region affecting sea-lanes and airspaces would create huge stress factors on the NZ economy due to massive disruption of export trade and shipping movements which may last some months. The true cost of having an insufficient investment in regional defence as a strategic hedge would make the deterrence price of a squadron of combat aircraft spread over a decade seem minute. Sadly, it seems to be a lesson that us Kiwi’s are hell bent on learning the hard way. We shouldn't drift along hoping somewhat vaguely that our insurance policy remains valid even though we have stopped paying the premiums. Waiting to see if trouble occurs before reacting means we lose! We have, for years, had a nucleus of a very good trained foce, capable of being expanded, but that has largely been taken away under the guise of political expediency. Defence never wins votes! Defence planning in a "peace dividend" requires an inordinate amount of planning and commitment, and should not be left to lurch along under threat from government changes. But that is what has happened to the Strike force, and we won't get it back. It's dead, buried, with the lid screwed down. That fella Petronius had it about right I reckon: "We trained hard ... but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization " Arbiter, Gauis Petronius That could be the basis of NZ Defence policy! |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Oct 18, 2009 16:51:08 GMT 12
Makes our 28 F-16s look mighty cheap doesn't it ($300M capital outlay up front plus US$13.5M p.a. lease cost). Granted these ones will be a lot more capable than ours would have been. That is one of the reasons for posting that US Govt document - to show how stupid the previous Govt was for turning down the once-in-a-lifetime US offer for 28 virtually brand-new F-16A/B Fighting Falcons. Sure, they might not have been top of the range F-16s like the Block 52 Fighting Falcons that Egypt is purchasing, but they would have suited the needs of New Zealand and the RNZAF very well. Yes, US$3.2 billion is a lot of money to spend, but you have to factor in all the ancillaries that are being included in the deal that Egypt has signed with the US; plus I wouldn't be surprised if that overall cost also included spares support for 10 years or so - much like the A$6 bn that the Australian Govt is spending on the purchase of the RAAF's 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets. Also, you must remember that these particular F-16s will probably remain in Egyptian Air Force service for up to 20 years or more. |
|
