|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Oct 28, 2009 20:37:19 GMT 12
Some interesting points there.
|
|
|
|
Post by nige on Oct 28, 2009 21:44:49 GMT 12
Got a link to the source there Yogi? Just want to know more about who wrote it and where it appeared etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Oct 29, 2009 20:52:58 GMT 12
Got a link to the source there Yogi? Just want to know more about who wrote it and where it appeared etc. sorry was just weaving through loads of adf related pages and pulled that cos i thought it was a bit interesting and almost relevant to the thread. i'm not sure which one it was on. |
|
|
|
Post by timmo on Oct 30, 2009 14:01:20 GMT 12
Interesting read Yogi and very pertinent to NZ's situation.
So, the question arises again- Should we indeed have a strike wing at all or would we be better to have 'training' aircraft with strike capability that are also used as a lead-in to other roles/aircraft (i.e. how the RNZAF wings course used to operate with the 'macchi- All pilots, regardless of eventual posting, would train on the macchi)
Having these aircraft would maintain most of the skills (pilot, maintenance, support) needed without the high purchase and operational costs of fully fledged strike aircraft.
In this, as noted previously, the 'macchi is the key initially.......
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Oct 30, 2009 14:21:29 GMT 12
I was interviewed by One News yesterday about the Skyhawk and Macchi sale. It should screen over the weekend. One point I made (which hopefully they will play) is that any decision on disposing of the aircraft should be delayed until after the Defence Review White Paper is completed. If that recommends some form of Air Combat Capability be reinstated (in whatever form) then those Macchis are key to it and shouldn't be sold. I for one will be very surprised if the White Paper doesn't recommend some form of Air Combat Capability is restored by NZ. The feedback I have had from the public submissions is that this was a key point in many submissions. Whether the Gov't chooses to do anything about it is a another matter (and they have pretty much ruled it out already). Others (including some of you here) should be making noises and lobbying the politicians in the public arena. After my interview is screened there will be an opportunity for others to jump on board. Give it a go. Write a letter to you local paper (even better write one to EVERY NZ paper). Email TV3 and ask them when they are going to do a story on this. Ring up Radio Live... you get the idea  |
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Oct 30, 2009 20:57:51 GMT 12
I was interviewed by One News yesterday about the Skyhawk and Macchi sale. It should screen over the weekend. One point I made (which hopefully they will play) is that any decision on disposing of the aircraft should be delayed until after the Defence Review White Paper is completed. If that recommends some form of Air Combat Capability be reinstated (in whatever form) then those Macchis are key to it and shouldn't be sold. I for one will be very surprised if the White Paper doesn't recommend some form of Air Combat Capability is restored by NZ. The feedback I have had from the public submissions is that this was a key point in many submissions. Whether the Gov't chooses to do anything about it is a another matter (and they have pretty much ruled it out already). Others (including some of you here) should be making noises and lobbying the politicians in the public arena. After my interview is screened there will be an opportunity for others to jump on board. Give it a go. Write a letter to you local paper (even better write one to EVERY NZ paper). Email TV3 and ask them when they are going to do a story on this. Ring up Radio Live... you get the idea thats great skyhawkdon very good advice I personally will try and heed. I very much hope they air that part also. It would be great if the media gave this topic a bit more coverage and tell both 'sides' of the story rather than just bagging the sky hawks all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Oct 30, 2009 21:22:14 GMT 12
Interesting read Yogi and very pertinent to NZ's situation. So, the question arises again- Should we indeed have a strike wing at all or would we be better to have 'training' aircraft with strike capability that are also used as a lead-in to other roles/aircraft (i.e. how the RNZAF wings course used to operate with the 'macchi- All pilots, regardless of eventual posting, would train on the macchi) Having these aircraft would maintain most of the skills (pilot, maintenance, support) needed without the high purchase and operational costs of fully fledged strike aircraft. In this, as noted previously, the 'macchi is the key initially....... Yep. I know this has all been said but... We need that basic capability that can be built on. to destroy that was well idiotic really. Keeping the macchis would be a turn in the right direction. And even though i'm sure most of the crews and pilots are gone if we get the macchis operational again i'm sure it wont be long until the unit is fully replenished with expert techs and pilots, a good pool to pick from and build on when/if we get actual jets again. (hell, I might even think about joining myself!! theres another bonus, recruitment figures will surely increase a heck of alot!) I will be very very interested to see the outcome of the defence white paper. (anyone know when its due to be 'released'? |
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Oct 31, 2009 8:05:33 GMT 12
It says "early next year" on the review web site. I'm picking around March or April.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 1, 2009 0:44:32 GMT 12
I know it's very late but I have had a thought and want to share it. I have largely lost rack of this thread a few pages back to be honest, but I thought I'd offer an idea here in case it has not yet been raised.
The main stumbling block apart from convincing Treasury to purchase new strike aircraft is the obvious loss of skilled fast jet-experienced tradesmen and instructors.
Right now our fast jet fleet of Skyhawks and Maachis are being sold to Hoss Pearson who is to use them for fast jet training contracts for the military.
How about in the interum period where New Zealand is purchasing new aircraft and awaiting for them to be built, the Government does a deal with Pearson to train a number of our pilots up to a skill level needed for when the new aircraft arrive. In return he can have the services of a unit of RNZAF ground staff posted to his base in the USA who will maintain his aircraft for a period, gathering their own skills and experience and working with the US trained tradesmen as their mentors. These guys could then be rotated onto a foreign Air Force who operate the same type we are buying and gain further skills on the actual type, before returning home and splitting off to the squadron as workers and the trade school as instructors.
We may be losing our old strike wing but it could be turned to our advantage to create a new, better one where everybody wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 1, 2009 17:14:21 GMT 12
Does no-one like that idea then? Oh well....
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 1, 2009 18:25:11 GMT 12
Sorry Dave, sleeping over the week end.
Your thought is a good one, and could play a part. As one who traveled overseas when my aeroplanes/ship disappeared on a political whim, I remained active in the adopted military for a further 16 years before retiring. After the original wave of redundant Royal Australian Naval Aviators transferred overseas or to other employment, there were probably another dozen self sponsored ab initio Australian arrivals in my adopted country/Navy looking for Fleet Air Arm careers.
NZ has a big RNZAF ethos and I would say your country has a benefit for a few more years where most of your players are still on the field, it's just that they're on someone else's field. These people will already be supplemented by the NZers who have gone to Australia or the UK of their own accord and joined their militaries. Not everyone will come home because the world is big and bright, but a team big enough to form the core of the renewed outfit will be ready if called. These returnees will be highly trained and skilled, possibly even more rounded than they would have been if you had kept your Strike Wing. The follow-on team would benefit from the build up you suggest, and your own people could be the primary trainers using leased equipment...
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Nov 1, 2009 19:16:01 GMT 12
I know it's very late but I have had a thought and want to share it. I have largely lost rack of this thread a few pages back to be honest, but I thought I'd offer an idea here in case it has not yet been raised. The main stumbling block apart from convincing Treasury to purchase new strike aircraft is the obvious loss of skilled fast jet-experienced tradesmen and instructors. Right now our fast jet fleet of Skyhawks and Maachis are being sold to Hoss Pearson who is to use them for fast jet training contracts for the military. How about in the interum period where New Zealand is purchasing new aircraft and awaiting for them to be built, the Government does a deal with Pearson to train a number of our pilots up to a skill level needed for when the new aircraft arrive. In return he can have the services of a unit of RNZAF ground staff posted to his base in the USA who will maintain his aircraft for a period, gathering their own skills and experience and working with the US trained tradesmen as their mentors. These guys could then be rotated onto a foreign Air Force who operate the same type we are buying and gain further skills on the actual type, before returning home and splitting off to the squadron as workers and the trade school as instructors. We may be losing our old strike wing but it could be turned to our advantage to create a new, better one where everybody wins. sounds like a pretty good idea to me dave. |
|
|
|
Post by nige on Nov 1, 2009 21:51:55 GMT 12
Except would his outfit teach dissimilar air combat training or CAS, interdiction and maritime strike etc? Or all that and then some!
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 2, 2009 8:17:13 GMT 12
Nige said:
Or all that and some...
My view is that fighter pilots can do a variety of tasks. You have listed a few mission specific skill requirements which will need a level of training and subsequent recency, none of which is hard to achieve once you have the wherewithal.
Would you expect RNZAF to take a different tack on training?
|
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 2, 2009 9:58:04 GMT 12
Great Idea but....
Who's going to foot the bill? It will still come down to Govt Policy and readiness to develop and engage in air power. What you have identified is a course of action. The mission still needs to be articulated. I'm afraid we are all in limbo until march next year. I wouldnt expect anything bright and shiny out of it (defence review).
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 2, 2009 15:09:16 GMT 12
Hi HAWKEYE, I have seen that comment before in this thread and you are absolutely correct. It all comes down to money and how much you are prepared to spend. With all the positives which have emerged on this thread over the last few weeks, I am glad someone has finally come back up with the same tired old loser line. In effect, you are saying NZ is poorer than the poorest of third world countries?  Sorry, Mate, I don't agree and I'm not even a Kiwi! ;D You have a lot to be proud of, and a huge amount of work in front of you, but I think New Zealand is a top little country with enough gumption to get things done even when seriously in need of some sensible leadership! If, as you suggest, New Zealand is by peopled by those who will give up when attacked by poorly thought out, badly applied internal political whimsy, it's probably good they stay away from real enemies and let confident, sensible countries watch out for them. You had better hope your real enemies stay far enough away from you that your little country isn't too badly hurt by being held up as an international "no load" pariah state! More importantly, you have to totally depend on your real friends putting up with your lack of spine! Even close friends will back away if they are threatened themselves, and on the admission of others on this thread, your threats must come via your friends first, so you should expect no-one else coming to help you. There are clearly people in New Zealand who are taking this forward to politicians. Is New Zealand really spineless? I think not...what say you? |
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 2, 2009 16:13:01 GMT 12
Hi HAWKEYE, I have seen that comment before in this thread and you are absolutely correct. It all comes down to money and how much you are prepared to spend. With all the positives which have emerged on this thread over the last few weeks, I am glad someone has finally come back up with the same tired old loser line. In effect, you are saying NZ is poorer than the poorest of third world countries? Sorry, Mate, I don't agree and I'm not even a Kiwi! ;D You have a lot to be proud of, and a huge amount of work in front of you, but I think New Zealand is a top little country with enough gumption to get things done even when seriously in need of some sensible leadership! If, as you suggest, New Zealand is by peopled by those who will give up when attacked by poorly thought out, badly applied internal political whimsy, it's probably good they stay away from real enemies and let confident, sensible countries watch out for them. You had better hope your real enemies stay far enough away from you that your little country isn't too badly hurt by being held up as an international "no load" pariah state! More importantly, you have to totally depend on your real friends putting up with your lack of spine! Even close friends will back away if they are threatened themselves, and on the admission of others on this thread, your threats must come via your friends first, so you should expect no-one else coming to help you. There are clearly people in New Zealand who are taking this forward to politicians. Is New Zealand really spineless? I think not...what say you? New Zealand is not a poor country;we can afford whatever we choose, and those that who complain about the cost of defence are really saying we don't need it, which is, of course, complete bolleaux with bells and whistles! The cost of modern defence technology is not beyond our means, andn need not crowd out other spending. Way back when...the cost of the F16 aircraft we contracted to lease for ten years was less than the equivalent of one day's spending on social welfare. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 2, 2009 16:16:08 GMT 12
Thanks phil82!
See HAWKEYE!! It's not just me who thinks you can do it!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 2, 2009 17:26:15 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 2, 2009 17:32:54 GMT 12
Whoa there,
Guys you are preaching to the choir.
My comment was meant to highlight that there is a bigger picture here. I'm sure if we had a workgroup, we could all come up with a really cunning plan to radically upgrade our defence capability - including probably a bit more offensive air than we have at the moment - something that we do need to do. The reality is that this is not the plan of the head shed (-the politicians) - this is the issue. Not what the people need or the professionals are able to deliver.
|
|
