Thats why we fire on the bridge & then board. We really don't want to sink them because if you impound the ship the law allows for forfeiture to the Crown plus sinking of FV causes all sorts of environmental problems but worst of all the paper work involved - it would be horrendous
. Who's gonna write the environmental impact statement?
Q. Doesn't RNZN fire ahead of the bow first when warning?Thats why we fire on the bridge & then board. We really don't want to sink them because if you impound the ship the law allows for forfeiture to the Crown plus sinking of FV causes all sorts of environmental problems but worst of all the paper work involved - it would be horrendous
Yep, if that doesn't work then do the rest. I put procedure up on a previous post.
The CN-235 fitted with the modular AMACOS fit would be a cost effective solution but given NZ's geography and the operational requirements of the RNZAF, the range and endurance of the CN-235 might be a limiting factor.
Malaysia is forking out 600 million ringgit [the exchange rate is about 3.01 ringgit for a U.S. dollar] for it's 4 A-400Ms. Not sure what the C-130J would costs but I'm pretty sure it's cheaper. Given the purchasing and operating costs of the C-17, I don't see how participating in the ADF's heavy lift programme would benefit NZ given the size of NZ's defence budget and it's operational requirements compared to Australia [of all countries, I can't see why Qatar would want a C-17!].
Not necessarily. If it was being used to monitor the EEZ then long range fuel tanks could be fitted to hard points on wings. It won't being carrying anything relatively heavy in that role, so extra rate of fuel and drag of tanks will not be an impairment on performance.
Check your figures again Sturm. The Malaysians are forking out about four times that amount. If only it was just R600m for 4 .....
. The C-130J is roughly cheaper by half.Apologies. I meant 600 million ringgit for each A400M.Check your figures again Sturm. The Malaysians are forking out about four times that amount. If only it was just R600m for 4 .....
The mission endurance can be up to ~9 hours for an HC-144A Ocean Sentry version of the CN-235MPA, for surveillance work.
The DWP is flawed as it assumed no attack in the next 25 years, we simply dont know what is going to happen in the next 25 years. The reason we do not see any threats in the future is that we cannot see into the future. The other problem with the DWP is that it does not as the question, how do we defend NZ, if you dont know how we are going to defend NZ how can we structure our defence forces correctly?
Rest assured Rob c, Govt agencies assess any likelyhood of threats and Govt then responds accordingly. The DWP is a point in time document, should things/events get worse then future DWP (and Govt actions independant of DWP's) will reflect this.
I concur with your reply having read Rob C's posts. I will add that I'd like to think that we have past the era of violent swinging of Defence policy and spending directive change and are now entering an era of some future certainty with regard to policy directives from their political masters. This is very much need both for NZDF forecasting and planning and in International Relations to show our allies, partners & friends that we have moved forward. IMHO that is very much need in order to regain respect and trust that was lost in the past 25 years because of various upheavals in policy direction.We've had a hypothetical invasion of NZ thread before (search this thread group although it may have been merged into this topic from memory). I don't want to bring that up again because it went downhill quite quickly (and it may incur the wrath of the defpros or mods), seeing there is no definition of who the invaders are. If you mean China invading NZ, forget that, they could buy up more NZ industry, enter into more partnerships or lock in long term supply and exploration arrangments being win-win for both sides. China would have to take out most of SE Asia to get here (and if it happened, you'll see NZ Govt boosting defence preparations faster than normal etc).
A better case you could be making is to prevent a repeat Mumbai incident - that is more likely than an undefined invasion - and your scenario better fits that type of terrorism scenario, rather than an invasion from another country. Overseas troops are usually professionals working with set procedures to ensure their objectives are met eg taking over the functioning govt etc (not acquring buses with no protection and shooting their way from AK to WN Parliament). Your scenario fits an irregular warfare, fanatical or terrorism scenario IMO.
I won't say anything further on this scenario (I've responded seeing you quoted my post, which was made when the DWP came out. After 25 years of capability cuts I was pleased Govt DWP ensured no capability cuts and some growth in new areas such as C&C and ISR. Granted this is all bare minimum and still prone to allow policy failure and we know nowadays Defence has to find alot of savings from within so DWP has taken on a new meaning in light of this, but we should be grateful it wasn't alot worse).
The invasion senerio was simply to highlight the vulnerability of NZ without any Aircombat ability. Conversely when we had the Skyhawks any nation wishing to invade would have needed an aicraft carrier, which are few and far between. However I disagree with you on Mumbai as this like most terror incidents is highly over emotionalised. Mumbia equalled 3 days of India's road toll and 7 day's of NZ's smoking related deaths and you are just as dead either way. We should not concentrate on what is most likely but rather what will cause us the most grief, which is the loss of soveregnty. For example the most common auto accident is a fender bender in a super market car park, but we target road safety on serious injury and death, which is far less common.We've had a hypothetical invasion of NZ thread before (search this thread group although it may have been merged into this topic from memory). I don't want to bring that up again because it went downhill quite quickly (and it may incur the wrath of the defpros or mods), seeing there is no definition of who the invaders are. If you mean China invading NZ, forget that, they could buy up more NZ industry, enter into more partnerships or lock in long term supply and exploration arrangments being win-win for both sides. China would have to take out most of SE Asia to get here (and if it happened, you'll see NZ Govt boosting defence preparations faster than normal etc).
A better case you could be making is to prevent a repeat Mumbai incident - that is more likely than an undefined invasion - and your scenario better fits that type of terrorism scenario, rather than an invasion from another country. Overseas troops are usually professionals working with set procedures to ensure their objectives are met eg taking over the functioning govt etc (not acquring buses with no protection and shooting their way from AK to WN Parliament). Your scenario fits an irregular warfare, fanatical or terrorism scenario IMO.
I won't say anything further on this scenario (I've responded seeing you quoted my post, which was made when the DWP came out. After 25 years of capability cuts I was pleased Govt DWP ensured no capability cuts and some growth in new areas such as C&C and ISR. Granted this is all bare minimum and still prone to allow policy failure and we know nowadays Defence has to find alot of savings from within so DWP has taken on a new meaning in light of this, but we should be grateful it wasn't alot worse).
I don’t think you will find many of us who disagree with your sentiments regarding a need for a component of air combat capability within the NZDF.