NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Before I saw the transcript of the email I suspected 'political influence'. To be frank neither Labour nor National (& greens or course) would like the healthy dose of 'reality' he brings to defence & security discussions (yes National too - they want rid of the 'old way' of thinking!).
But er, um having seen the email (in this mornings NZ Herald) I'm not surprised - it was REALLY quite on the nose & uncalled for! Yes I agree with much of what he expressed in the email about standards etc, and yes there were mitigating factors on both sides, but frankly he went too far in the email - too personal! Somethings are best thought than spoken - and this was one of them!
But no - he should NOT be sacked over it - but then the Uni is horribly 'poilitcal' in it's own right with many vested interests & back-stabbing amoung staff!...Academics eh! 'Those that know there stuff get a job in the field, those that don't teach it!...arf, arf, arf!
Oh for god's sake I'm only joking - no offence intended!Academics eh! 'Those that know there stuff get a job in the field, those that don't teach it!...arf, arf, arf!
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Dammn, I suspected I was nuts and now you confirm it!
Well the qualifier was those that put their lives at risk for the common good. And I would looovve to see how some public servants make their justification to qualify for this etc (should make a good chuckle or two), ha ha!
Granted, where does one draw the line but it's pretty clear that if you are serving your country, and on deployment in any of the troublespots the NZDF are at present, your life is at risk be that a real physical one or due to an accident because of the conditions etc. Hmmm a 20-30% pay rise would seem attractive don't you think?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Yes saw the Herald article this morning, Buchanan's email does appear to be over the top. Would suspect he was under alot of stress to put in those comments, however unless there is more to this than we have been told, dismissal was uncalled for. Simple discipline would have been sufficient.Before I saw the transcript of the email I suspected 'political influence'. To be frank neither Labour nor National (& greens or course) would like the healthy dose of 'reality' he brings to defence & security discussions (yes National too - they want rid of the 'old way' of thinking!).
But er, um having seen the email (in this mornings NZ Herald) I'm not surprised - it was REALLY quite on the nose & uncalled for! Yes I agree with much of what he expressed in the email about standards etc, and yes there were mitigating factors on both sides, but frankly he went too far in the email - too personal! Somethings are best thought than spoken - and this was one of them!
But no - he should NOT be sacked over it - but then the Uni is horribly 'poilitcal' in it's own right with many vested interests & back-stabbing amoung staff!...Academics eh! 'Those that know there stuff get a job in the field, those that don't teach it!...arf, arf, arf!
Agreed that the more we lose people like this, it ain't a good thing. Maybe one of the other Uni's should offer him a job as they all seem to have Policy or Defence centres etc.
Had to comment on this!
Who knows NZ might be the Superpower then and the Aussies and Yanks might want to merge with us!
I dont see this happening in my lifetime sorry but maybe in some other generation say somewhere in 4015!
Who knows NZ might be the Superpower then and the Aussies and Yanks might want to merge with us!
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Um, staying off topic for a moment, here's the updated Herald online article on Buchanan's sacking. Poor guy was under alot of stress due to an operation and having funding cut etc. Plus the wider issue of english standards of fee paying international students. One can assume that as Uni's need foreign fee paying students to make up for govt shortfall's, the Uni sacrificed him to minimise any potential damage to their reputation. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10456446&pnum=0 also on the page is a link to the emails. A very sad situation for all concerned.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
There was the usual interservice rivalry at the time, but it did go beyoned that. When National was in its last gasp in government, there was some activity going on that some would regard as highly improper, to say the least and may border on unconstitutional, but I wont say more than that.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
For practical purposes they already do, they are public emplyoyees, all that happens is some money is spent on paperwork to make it look like they earn more, then pretend to tax them. Make their income tax free and you actually save money becuase you are not spending on loads of paper.
Last edited:
Stuart Mackey
New Member
The problem was, and is, that there was never any forthought as to future contingencies based on a long term evaluation of history as a whole and the potential for future crisis. The choice to scrap the ACF was partly ideological, justified within a deliberately narrow strategic framework, lacked intellectual rigor and relied on weak opposition and an uninformed populace to win votes. In short, it was pure politics.
Why would they agree to that? they would gain nothing from it except a squadron they have no control over when they need it, but have to pay for anyway, and may be asked to do things they have no national interest in.
Try telling a social worker in South Auckland that their lives are not at risk on a daily basis, they are proabably in more danger of being physically assulted on a daily basis than anyone in the NZDF.
NZ and Aussie do most things together, I would image that any issue when the NZ squadon would be used would be in the national interest of both countries, what affects Australia generally affects us, in the arrangement if we needed them for something we would get them, I could see this being win win for both countries.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
How about Iraq?
You might see it that way, but I doubt Australia will when they have to shell out a billion for fighters that we will use for no other reason than we dont want to spend the money ourselves. No matter how you dress it up, this attitude is called bludging and it will never happen.
Well, lets hope so. Yes i hate the idea of bludging and NZ has had a reputation in doing this for some time. I do think that instead of Australia paying through the nose on fighters for NZ that it would make far better sense to actually spend that money and have our own fighters based at home than have them integrated with Australian Squadrons. Then they are under the autonomy of our own government who would have full responsibility for them. However in saying that NZ did have N0 2 Squadron based at Nowra for the purpose of training the RAN. However these were our own aircraft bought by NZ and we had a contract with the Australian government to operate them there.
Under the current political climate trying to suggest to the Australian government of having our fighters based in Australia whether we had bought them or not is really trying to sherk a political hot potato onto the Australians and in this vein this is simply not acceptable.
Under the current political climate trying to suggest to the Australian government of having our fighters based in Australia whether we had bought them or not is really trying to sherk a political hot potato onto the Australians and in this vein this is simply not acceptable.
gate crashing
Which leads us back to forking out our own dollars to get our own ACF yes it would have to be a longterm proposition but thinking of the jet technology in the future by the time we buy some might be worth waiting for!
Hopefully we wont be buying F16s in 2015 I like the look of the Sukhoi FN32 maritime fighters a pity its Russian not meaning its inferior but platform wise might not suit servicing, parts etc and commonality with allies systems.
Which leads us back to forking out our own dollars to get our own ACF yes it would have to be a longterm proposition but thinking of the jet technology in the future by the time we buy some might be worth waiting for!
Hopefully we wont be buying F16s in 2015 I like the look of the Sukhoi FN32 maritime fighters a pity its Russian not meaning its inferior but platform wise might not suit servicing, parts etc and commonality with allies systems.
Interesting you have bought up the FN32 Russian fighters, because i have for a long time been thinking about NZ having this type in its inventory alongside the RNZAF. Russian aircraft are extremely capable and are not that expensive to buy. However i am always brought down to earth for a number of reasons and one is that getting the parts would be a nightmare unless we were able to manufacture them here under licence. Due to the fluid political climate in Russia and with NZs out spoken voice on human rights abuses within Russia this would make our relationship with Russia rather turbulent indeed. I think we are getting some idea about that trying to chase a FTA with China and its abismal record of human rights and other Chinese International underhand tactics.
Then there is this political western mindset that buying Russian is frowned upon by our allies and may cause problems with our relationships with other countries around the world. Keeping up with upgrades may be a problem also due to Russias fluid defence market and perhaps unreliability.
Then there is this political western mindset that buying Russian is frowned upon by our allies and may cause problems with our relationships with other countries around the world. Keeping up with upgrades may be a problem also due to Russias fluid defence market and perhaps unreliability.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I think you'd find most Russian aircraft would have difficulty complying with your air safety regulations, let alone meeting any possible RNZAF requirements.
Add in a relatively low initial acquisition cost, but significantly higher maintenance and support costs, much lower mean time between failure with Russian equipment compared to "Western" platforms along with the known deficiencies in Russian support levels and they might not seem like the bargains they appear to be...
Yes the Su fn32 suits what NZ need in a jet fightrer it can carry a generous amount of weapons in terms of weight and the latest bvr missiles it has asw capabilities which suits our huge oceans it has speed and a good range which means we can launch them in NZ to strike within our region, it also complements the f111s they can hit land targets and we would provide cover for the navy and concentrate on sea targets and the f18s would provide air defence what a combo!!!
We could get a licence to build them here and put in our reliable western technology although we would be stretching it to say we could build jets I just love the look of them they are big birds, investing in smaller jet fighters does not make sense I would rather a western fighter based on similar lines of the su fn32 with its asw suite, its rear radar, two pilot tandem, long mission patrols, etc. Does anybody think we could build a jet if we had help from defence contractors in australia and the usa based on existing well tried airframes but altering it to suit nz maritime needs developing a niche for our jet pilots that may prove invaluable to a coalition??
We could get a licence to build them here and put in our reliable western technology although we would be stretching it to say we could build jets I just love the look of them they are big birds, investing in smaller jet fighters does not make sense I would rather a western fighter based on similar lines of the su fn32 with its asw suite, its rear radar, two pilot tandem, long mission patrols, etc. Does anybody think we could build a jet if we had help from defence contractors in australia and the usa based on existing well tried airframes but altering it to suit nz maritime needs developing a niche for our jet pilots that may prove invaluable to a coalition??
Well i think my post did somewhat cloud an idea of having Russian built jets for our Air Force in the first place, however im glad you were able to "fill in the gaps".
In saying that i was in fact thinking on the lines of a handful of Su32s which have incredible range and has a strong maritime mission capability. I do know that the Mig31s have had very high maintenance issues but i m not sure about the Su32. I think the Su32 has a far superior operational ratio than the Migs to be honest but wouldnt like to hazard a guess on the maintenance issues on them. I do know they are very popular and have been acquired by various nations such as malaysia, Indonesia and China and Venezuela. Just to name a few.
But unfortunatly its the political issue that really makes this choice a non event.
In saying that i was in fact thinking on the lines of a handful of Su32s which have incredible range and has a strong maritime mission capability. I do know that the Mig31s have had very high maintenance issues but i m not sure about the Su32. I think the Su32 has a far superior operational ratio than the Migs to be honest but wouldnt like to hazard a guess on the maintenance issues on them. I do know they are very popular and have been acquired by various nations such as malaysia, Indonesia and China and Venezuela. Just to name a few.
But unfortunatly its the political issue that really makes this choice a non event.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
Allthough that type of aircraft would be ideal for NZ, in certain circumstances, building them here would be economicaly unviable and making the plane reliable would cost a fortune and I am not sure NZ has the skills to do something like that, cost effectivly or within an acceptable time frame.There are also compatibility questions with other, western, nations systems. This is not accounting for local politics or the implications of buying products from Mother Russia.