NZDF - Now and the Future.
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
- Status
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #402
Fingers crossed for 10:lol3 (or at least 8) , I am sure we will have to wait for the last day in July as well .Lucasnz said:
I don't understand the whole "6-10" figure. There's a big difference between 6 and 10, and I'm also sure that they would (at this late stage) know exactly how many we're getting.
On a tangent - it's been mentioned that the LUH may have SpecFor applications. If so, would this have a positive effect on choices and purchasing of the LUH, and would there be any overlap with the SpecFor budget (in the LTDP)?
On a tangent - it's been mentioned that the LUH may have SpecFor applications. If so, would this have a positive effect on choices and purchasing of the LUH, and would there be any overlap with the SpecFor budget (in the LTDP)?
Im guessing that there will be National Government in at the new election coming up. So what we have been talking about so far we can easily throw out the window and start again at the drawing board.
John Carter has said that National will have a Defense review once elected into parliament. Yes the M777 is a good piece of field artillery. I would assume the NH90 can transport it as well, being so light.
John Carter has said that National will have a Defense review once elected into parliament. Yes the M777 is a good piece of field artillery. I would assume the NH90 can transport it as well, being so light.
Whiskyjack said:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #406
My guess they are still negotiating and don't want to make any comments that may 'risk' negotiations!mug said:
On the second point, there may be specialised equipment but not the helo itself.
Sorry ladies and gentleman the NH90 contract has now been cancelled. Having had further talks with Defence staff it has been decided that we will extend the life of the UH-1, by buying parts from the US government at the Mojave Desert aircraft graveyard! :lol3 :lol3
Whiskyjack said:Fingers crossed for 10:lol3 (or at least 8) , I am sure we will have to wait for the last day in July as well .
I understand that the NH90' s will be bog standard with no fancy stuff at all, may well vary from the Australian spec , hence the discussion as to whether they will be Euro or Aussie build. It would have to be at least 8 would'nt it ? I think originally the number was quoted as up to 12 airfames and has been gradually whittled back.
Yes you would'nt need an NH90 to move around 4 man SAS teams. Maybe with the talk of as little as 6 there is some serious thought to going with something like the AS 565UB as the LUH option, its not like you need to have a huge fleet of aircraft for training only.
Yes you would'nt need an NH90 to move around 4 man SAS teams. Maybe with the talk of as little as 6 there is some serious thought to going with something like the AS 565UB as the LUH option, its not like you need to have a huge fleet of aircraft for training only.
Has anyone read this article :
http://www.allmedia.co.nz/defence/
The scary thing is the guy is suggesting that we buy Bell Tilt-rotors :dbanana
Seems someone uninformed, such as believing the OPV's don't allow for an embarked Seaprite.
http://www.allmedia.co.nz/defence/
The scary thing is the guy is suggesting that we buy Bell Tilt-rotors :dbanana
Seems someone uninformed, such as believing the OPV's don't allow for an embarked Seaprite.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #410
Yes, he does say that he has no military experience or knowledge, but even so I shuddered and cringed a bit.KH-12 said:
I can understand his POV (heartedly disagree with it), but the impracticality of all those different types of equipment!
Anyone without any military experience shouldn't be commenting about the military: operations or financing it. If he thinks two frigates, their crews, and their helicopters are too expensive, what does he think of operating 10 patrol vessels, their crews, and their helicopters will cost? A total idiot!
Its also been my experience its cheaper to fund the salaries of your armed forces than it is to hire mercenaries. Of course, his ideal of a 4,000 men/women voluntary emergency force is ridicious. How are you going to recruit for this force without a salary? Not only is he an idiot, he is also stupid!
Its also been my experience its cheaper to fund the salaries of your armed forces than it is to hire mercenaries. Of course, his ideal of a 4,000 men/women voluntary emergency force is ridicious. How are you going to recruit for this force without a salary? Not only is he an idiot, he is also stupid!
Last edited:
Considering we live in a democracy I wouldn't expect a fellow countrymen to say that a civilian shouldn't have an opinion on his military. Civilians budget the military...don't forget that. I'm assuming you serve in the Coast Guard considering your obsession with OPVs. Correct me if I'm wrong. This doesn't give you any more right to have an opinion than this gentleman.Sea Toby said:
He actually appears to be concerned with intense training/specialization and the general welfare of those in service. While you are correct in your assesment, he wants to make the NZDF a glorified police force that really is what it is now. His plan would streamline the force structure to fit the operational requirements of that role. With the decapitation of her combat aircraft is this not what NZDF is? She can not hold her own against any modern force. Her forces don't even compliment the ADF which was her primary role. While many of these ideas appear absurd to those who think of the NZDF as a hard hitting military force the political will has shifted her to the role of policemen. This guy might not know the best way to get there but at least he's on the right track. The NZDF needs new equipment and force-structure to play policemen if she is not willing to seriously commit a balanced force to the world stage. Current structures and equipment are totally bungled for the missions at hand.
Like everyone on this forum , they are entitled to their opinion whether everyone agrees or not. There are some interesting aspects to his proposal but it does have holes in it.
My opinion is that there are fundementals in his military thinking that are flawed and are not suitable to the conditions our defense forces are set up.
Again i am seeing the mentality as i have outlined before in a previous posting that their is a concensus in among analysts and government thinking that NZ should take the role of "peacekeeping" duties and i am seeing this reflected in the direction our defense forces are moving towards. This wont change until we have regime change in the next election.
My opinion is that there are fundementals in his military thinking that are flawed and are not suitable to the conditions our defense forces are set up.
Again i am seeing the mentality as i have outlined before in a previous posting that their is a concensus in among analysts and government thinking that NZ should take the role of "peacekeeping" duties and i am seeing this reflected in the direction our defense forces are moving towards. This wont change until we have regime change in the next election.
Sea Toby said:
No you are right NZ cant hold her own with the force structure we have at the moment, however it also appears you are being a bit critical of NZs Defence posture as it stands today. The NZ Defense forces have undergone an immense amount of change in the last few years and it had to go through the "ringer" of different political agendas from both National and Labour over the last 2 decades..
However, at this moment we are following Australias lead and incorporating our forces with theirs. That makes a formidable defensive arrangement in the South Pacific if you combine our two countries defense resources.
Like you i am dissapointed with the governments lack of seriousness when it comes to defense but this is hardly surprising given the agenda of Labour over Defense. We urgently need a regime change to break this cycle. Security and Defense should be the countries number one priority. This means training men and women for war, and using equipment that are relevant to Australias for commonality, as well as making sensible purchases without trimming the purse strings. There is so much money thats needed to get our forces off the ground that its probably going to take several years to get it on its feet again, but i am worried with the "peacekeeping" mentality of our government and i can only hope that maybe they will start to look at hard ware that will carry our forces into the future. But i dont see that happening.
However, at this moment we are following Australias lead and incorporating our forces with theirs. That makes a formidable defensive arrangement in the South Pacific if you combine our two countries defense resources.
Like you i am dissapointed with the governments lack of seriousness when it comes to defense but this is hardly surprising given the agenda of Labour over Defense. We urgently need a regime change to break this cycle. Security and Defense should be the countries number one priority. This means training men and women for war, and using equipment that are relevant to Australias for commonality, as well as making sensible purchases without trimming the purse strings. There is so much money thats needed to get our forces off the ground that its probably going to take several years to get it on its feet again, but i am worried with the "peacekeeping" mentality of our government and i can only hope that maybe they will start to look at hard ware that will carry our forces into the future. But i dont see that happening.
Big-E said:
Would have to agree, it is pretty much a load of lefty tree-hugging rhetoric, however it is representitive of some of the thinking out there with regards to defence strategy and planning, unfortunately some people buy into it. The guy does'nt really seem to have a good understanding of the defence environment, I mean those Hercs are 40 years old not 30Markus40 said:
I see the EC145 is looking like a real starter for the US Army LUH bid, would be fairly amazing for the US to go with a non-US design even if Sikorsky is a major subcontractor in the bid, could be a good aircraft for us.
What of the anti-submarine role for the P-3K's is it prudent to update the ASW systems or not, apart from enhanced signal processing for sonabouy systems what else would you do, is a MAD system still relevant.
KH-12 said:
I think NZ needs to retain the ASW capability on the P-3K's. However I don't think the low level of an ASW threat justifies maintanance of a MAD capability. However that's operating around NZ, if we were to deploy them on say an ET type operation, then MAD maybe of more importance.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
I have found that a lot of ideas that you see like that on the internet are genrally ideas born of ignorance, rather that what side of the political political spectrum they come from. The issue is when that ignorance is used and abused by political parties of all shades for their own reasons.Markus40 said:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #420
I find that there are generally a few nuggets of gold in a lot of bad strategies.Stuart Mackey said:
There is no real Defence website aimed at NZ. I guess a few of us need to get together and get one going where people can come and learn about defence without having an ideology (from either side) shoved down their throat.
I am not sure how balanced it would be, even I (believe it or not) can be a bit one sided sometimes
.- Status