NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Markus40]

I dont have an argument with you about the ferry range. The F18 would be struggling to make a hit 2000km away, however, we have discussed before the option of a logistics base in Niue. Whether the A4s were slow and not useful as you say would be far better to hold onto than to throw them away, as they were useful to a point before being disbanded. I dont think i need to go into the reasons for that.

Tell me why are you are compelled to believe that the F18 would be a disaster for NZ? Maybe you know something i dont. ! The A4s in my opinion whether on CAP, CAS or any other role are using aircover for any number of missions to those on the ground, sea or in the air. Im not in the mood with playing with words.!!!

I think i have made my point VERY clear. Im talking about a current benign level of security in that region. Those countries ive mentioned do not have the threats surrounding it and are alike to our own security issues. Although they are closely knit with other countries. Still they have friendly neighbours and they do NOT disband their airforces just because the security situation in their region looks benign.

Whiskyjack, it seems to me we have some mis understandings and it does seem to be fundemental. IE across the board. I just think you have a different view point and i have another. Thats okay. But when i am offering you sound opinions backed up with facts and theory based on my knowledge and experience within the armed forces im afraid you come out less than convincing. In fact totally backward in some aspects of your arguments. I would like to see you generate a more convincing and better arguments than the ones you are offering at present, and its from there hopefully we can progress from there. Cheers mate.

Markus ferry range is not strike radius, here you are looking at no more than 1000km. Still 1000km short. The A4s were technically not useful in that they were to slow to operate with allied strike packages. The F-18 at 30 years old would be a disaster for the RNZAF as it would tie up logistics resources’ like you would not believe.





You will have to keep repeating yourself until you justify you position e.g. I say the moon is made of cheese!




Markus that is just not true, they may well have given a good account of themselves in ACM, but that is not air cover!!!! They had an operating radius of around 600kms with external drop tanks and MAVs OR AIMs!



Markus what do you not understand about this issue!! Iceland has a population of 300,000! Norway has been invaded and is part of Europe and shares a land border. As for Brazil, Argentina and South Africa if you are seriously sating they are in a benign strategic environment then I suggest you check again! How do any of these countries compare to NZ’s strategic environment?



I don’t disagree I just use facts! Theory and opinion need to stand up, not just be right because a person tells you they are? facts, appropriate examples.

 

[Markus40]

Sniffing in places where the sun dont shine, doesnt give you any credibility in anything you say, my friend.

Indeed, I noticed that. You know, I smell troll.

 

[Markus40]

Thats right. So why shouldnt the RNZAF do it with the air force. Are you backward?? Thats right a strike force is the pinnacle of any defence force. Perhaps you also need to go back to english class to learn what that means. Dont keep repeating yourself. Look up the word "benign". Then read my post again.

Labour wernt elected to shape a better defence structure. They were elected because of a useless National government. However its impossible to explain this to someone who has a red head and rolling their eyes in a fit.

Why should i prove anything to you about why i think a strike force should be in place when you havent fisnished any army training yet? Let me know when you have and i will discuss this with you further.

"NZ should reinstate its strike wing to have the chance of extending its soverignty over the Pacific. The NZDF are going to do this with the new OPVs and MRV with the Navy."

Yes, you did, as quoted above. unless you want to claim that the OPV's and the MRV are more expensive than reconsituting the air combat wing?




Yeah, and? Carriers are the pinnicle of any naval force, but you dont see the RNZN asking for a Nimitz class carrier do you?



False analogy. The strategic situation of Isreal is not even remotely comparable to that of NZ.



And another appeal to authority. Just because these 'most people' say this, the onus is still on you to provide evidence to sustain your argument, now why dont you provide a credible reason why we need an air strike wing?



grow up.




So why exactly are you saying that we need them?



Yet another appeal to some vague authority. Labour gets to shape defence policy because they were elected. Moreover people agree with their defence policy because they can make a rational case for what they are doing, something that you, like the National party, have yet to accomplish. Waving your hands around saying we need a capability because everyone else has it, is not sound policy.



And yet, you have still to prove it has any value to this country or back up anything you say with evidence.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Sniffing in places where the sun dont shine, doesnt give you any credibility in anything you say, my friend.

You know, you claim an armed forces backround, but you sound like no service personell I have ever known. Would you care to show some evidence for this to the moderating staff? Might be nice to back up your claims of service to your country.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Thats right. So why shouldnt the RNZAF do it with the air force. Are you backward?? Thats right a strike force is the pinnacle of any defence force. Perhaps you also need to go back to english class to learn what that means. Dont keep repeating yourself. Look up the word "benign". Then read my post again.

Labour wernt elected to shape a better defence structure. They were elected because of a useless National government. However its impossible to explain this to someone who has a red head and rolling their eyes in a fit.

Why should i prove anything to you about why i think a strike force should be in place when you havent fisnished any army training yet? Let me know when you have and i will discuss this with you further.

Actually the pinnacle of any defence force is the ability to adequately defend their country and region. Its not a platform issue my friend, its not about who has bigger toys, but who is effective within the environment they operate in. That is not even a debatable point!

Stop getting personal because you cannot adequately defend your position.

 

[Sea Toby]

Frankly, New Zealand would have to increase capital and operational spending to pay for the light fighters/trainers. To triple that amount to pay for a full fledge fighter force too in my opinion is too much considering the tight budgets. Other more important equipment that would be used is needed.

Maybe adding a second Mk41 VLS to the Anzacs providing tubes for Tomahawk land attack missiles will be cheaper. Notice I am not even thinking about adding area defence Standard missiles. Its just that once a Tomahawk is used, it can't be reused like a light fighter.trainer.

 

[Markus40]

Okay so you are in for the buy for a light fighter, which is what i would support too. Its interesting to see that the cost for all the 8 NH90s and spares etc are about the same cost for the 28-30 F16s back in the late 90s. Incredible to think that aircraft have inflated to the point of where they are today. It just goes to show how good a deal the F16 purchase would have been to the NZDFs if they were selected. The US gave us to good a deal.

Have you checked the price for fighters recently. Havy you notice that the trainers/light fighters are about half the price of a fighter? That's why I don't think New Zealand will ever have full fledged fighters. Their price! For example, Hawk aircraft sell around $15 million US dollars, that's $30 million New Zealand dollars, plus anothrer 40 percent like the NH90 deal for spare parts and support, the price is up to $42 million per aircraft for light fighters/trainers. A full fledge fighter would run over $90 million each. Also notice that the Hawk and Golden Eagle light fighters/trainers are much cheaper to operate too. You'll never get two squadrons worth, considering the upcoming need to replace the Hercules and Orions.

It was the same with the A-4 Skyhawks. By the time New Zealand received them they were trainers/light fighters for the US Marine Corps. New Zealand couldn't afford F-16s back in 1980. At about the same time Australia was buying F/A-18s. New Zealand couldn't afford them either. Until the sweetheart, cream puffs from Pakistan became available, New Zealand couldn't afford F-16s. Well, that sweetheart deal is gone, the cream puffs are gone, those aircraft have been swallowed in whole by the USAF.

I have noticed that this government chose to separate the NH90 and EC-135 buys. Towards the end of the next decade New Zealand is facing a huge upcoming order to buy 5 Hercules and 6 Orion replacements, more than likely half that number for new P-8s. So New Zealand will have to buy 5 Hercules and 3 P-8s. Have you checked their prices lately? Easily $2 billion in US dollars, $4 billion in New Zealand dollars. It will more than likely take the entire decade to pay for them at the current rate of procurement.

While the current government saw the opportunity to eliminate the air combat force, it won't be able to eliminate the maritime patrol assets, as they are used every day, and the Hercules transport force. They will have to pay the piper! If New Zealand wishes to reconstitute the air combat force, it appears all they may be able to afford are the cheaper, second rate, light fighters/trainers aircraft. While they don't have the range of a full fledge fighter, they will provide the maritime strike and close air support, comparable to the air threat to New Zealand.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Thats right. So why shouldnt the RNZAF do it with the air force. Are you backward??

Because that mission does not need to be done with combat aircraft, thats why.

Thats right a strike force is the pinnacle of any defence force.

Prove it

Perhaps you also need to go back to english class to learn what that means. Dont keep repeating yourself. Look up the word "benign". Then read my post again.

Labour wernt elected to shape a better defence structure. They were elected because of a useless National government. However its impossible to explain this to someone who has a red head and rolling their eyes in a fit.

And again with the insults...

Why should i prove anything to you about why i think a strike force should be in place when you havent fisnished any army training yet? Let me know when you have and i will discuss this with you further.

Ahh, so in otherwords, you cant prove anything you claim, can you?

Tell me, have you ever been to Burnham camp?

 

[Markus40]

Yes they would, and would require the National government to do that job i think. What i do think is if the National party were promising billions of tax cuts in their last election then surely there would have been money floating around for a reinstated combat squadron for the RNZAF.

For me it makes sense to have Harpoons for the VLS as an upgrade for the ANZAC as well as the ESSM. I might be wrong here but the Tomahawk would be seen as a major threat here and could cause some political fallout.

Frankly, New Zealand would have to increase capital and operational spending to pay for the light fighters/trainers. To triple that amount to pay for a full fledge fighter force too in my opinion is too much considering the tight budgets. Other more important equipment that would be used is needed.

Maybe adding a second Mk41 VLS to the Anzacs providing tubes for Tomahawk land attack missiles will be cheaper. Notice I am not even thinking about adding area defence Standard missiles.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Frankly, New Zealand would have to increase capital and operational spending to pay for the light fighters/trainers. To triple that amount to pay for a full fledge fighter force too in my opinion is too much considering the tight budgets. Other more important equipment that would be used is needed.

Maybe adding a second Mk41 VLS to the Anzacs providing tubes for Tomahawk land attack missiles will be cheaper. Notice I am not even thinking about adding area defence Standard missiles. Its just that once a Tomahawk is used, it can't be reused like a light fighter.trainer.

I agree in regarding fighters. I would like to see a UAV network, say 5 Mariners to start (total cost around the US$200m mark?) With an ability to conduct precision strike using something like SDMs and the new NSM missile (just a guide) have the NSM on the Sea Sprites and ANZACs as well as the P3s would give a common capable missile.

I see that the SDMs have demonstrated a capability to hit a moving APC using laser guidance in addition to GPS, so integration onto a UAV with a Laser Designator is not out of the question.

Would have to be done over the course of a decade, but it would be much cheaper and IMO more useful min the region and for coalition missions. The ability to have a UAV on station for 24hrs or more carrying 6-8 SDMs in a low level conflict is going to give commanders a lot of extra capabilities.

 

[Markus40]

Yes i went to Burnham. It was here they told me that they had a recruit who liked to bend over in the shower to pick up the soap.

As to the South Pacific who said a mission had to be completed by combat aircraft? I said that it would be good to have a fighter squadron that can extend our area of sovreignty in the South Pacific. Not a mission. What planet are you on??

Because that mission does not need to be done with combat aircraft, thats why.



Prove it



And again with the insults...



Ahh, so in otherwords, you cant prove anything you claim, can you?

Tell me, have you ever been to Burnham camp?

 

[Whiskyjack]

Yes they would, and would require the National government to do that job i think. What i do think is if the National party were promising billions of tax cuts in their last election then surely there would have been money floating around for a reinstated combat squadron for the RNZAF.

For me it makes sense to have Harpoons for the VLS as an upgrade for the ANZAC as well as the ESSM. I might be wrong here but the Tomahawk would be seen as a major threat here and could cause some political fallout.

VLS Harpoons?????? They are not deployed in a Mk41 they are in angled canisters.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-41-vls.htm

 

[Markus40]

Creatures who come out of the woodwork to smell orphesus of military personel i dont stoop down too. I dont cast pearl before swine.

You know, you claim an armed forces backround, but you sound like no service personell I have ever known. Would you care to show some evidence for this to the moderating staff? Might be nice to back up your claims of service to your country.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Yes i went to Burnham. It was here they told me that they had a recruit who liked to bend over in the shower to pick up the soap.

Way to far mate, and out of line.

As to the South Pacific who said a mission had to be completed by combat aircraft? I said that it would be good to have a fighter squadron that can extend our area of sovreignty in the South Pacific. Not a mission. What planet are you on??

So explain the difference, how does it extend NZ's sovereignty when a P3 flies much further?

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Yes i went to Burnham. It was here they told me that they had a recruit who liked to bend over in the shower to pick up the soap.

Really? I didnt know they did regular force training at Burnham..oh and perhaps you might tell me the proximity of Gallipoli Barracks to the Sportsman's bar? I always like a cold beer from time to time.

As to the South Pacific who said a mission had to be completed by combat aircraft?

"NZ should reinstate its strike wing to have the chance of extending its soverignty over the Pacific."

You did.

I said that it would be good to have a fighter squadron that can extend our area of sovreignty in the South Pacific. Not a mission. What planet are you on??

We can already do this with the navy, as you correctly pointed out

"The NZDF are going to do this with the new OPVs and MRV with the Navy"."

Which negates the need of a strike wing to perform this task.
Oh, you still havent explained how NZ can extend it soverignty over the Pacific with out picking a fight with the US and France..

 

[Markus40]

Yes correct.

VLS Harpoons?????? They are not deployed in a Mk41 they are in angled canisters.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-41-vls.htm

 

[Markus40]

I think you have mixed up in your mind the word "sovreignty" and "mission". Both are different. But ummm i think you should finish coming out of Burnham, thats if you do, before i will explain the differences to you.

Why do you think we should negate the need of the air combat force from fullfilling this role when there are benefits for both the Navy and airforce to accomplish this role? Can you not see perhaps there are benefits from having our armed forces based in a island state like fiji for farewell visits and exercises etc.

As to France and the US? Well, lets say i will ask my little brother who has no military knowledge about such issues and i will come back to you with an answer. Would that suit you?

Really? I didnt know they did regular force training at Burnham..oh and perhaps you might tell me the proximity of Gallipoli Barracks to the Sportsman's bar? I always like a cold beer from time to time.



"NZ should reinstate its strike wing to have the chance of extending its soverignty over the Pacific."

You did.





We can already do this with the navy, as you correctly pointed out

"The NZDF are going to do this with the new OPVs and MRV with the Navy"."

Which negates the need of a strike wing to perform this task.
Oh, you still havent explained how NZ can extend it soverignty over the Pacific with out picking a fight with the US and France..

 

[Markus40]

Firstly, youll get over it mate. Im not too happy with your manner either, so lets call a truce on this one before it goes "deeper" .

Secondly, extending our sovereignty wasnt going further but spreading the ability, and capability wider. Im sure you are right that a P3 can go further, by useing external fuel tanks im sure that an F18 in this example can reach Fiji. IE Ferry Range 3000Kms.

Way to far mate, and out of line.



So explain the difference, how does it extend NZ's sovereignty when a P3 flies much further?

 

[abramsteve]

Markus, mate, I think some one needs to be more direct with you. Why do you think New Zealand needs a strike wing? You talk of it being a neccesary part of a nations defence forces, but seriously, do you think the 20 or so fighters that could be purchased could adequatley defend NZ? You accept that there is no regional threat, so you must be thinking of bigger one, say the USN???

You argue that fighters could be used for support of troops abroad. Again, when and where are they going to be so badly needed? Are you proposing that NZ send its entire stirke wing on deployments overseas? Or maybe send 8, meaning that for all the expense required logisticaly they could operate what 4 fighters? Sounds usefull...

Make the NZDF usefull, not only to its allies, but also in the eyes of the public. I can not agree with you on the need for such an expensive waste.

 

[webmaster]

Markus, please read the rules:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

Everyone,
You are required and moderator team demands that you stay in circle of respect for those who you do not agree with. Disagreement is OKAY but disrespecting and name calling is just not fair play.

Thread locked until further notice and will be reopened after a review.

For now, may want to relax by checking up on non-kiwi issues.

Thanks and enjoy!