Royal New Zealand Air Force

I would think so. By all accounts the Warthogs are very good at making life difficult for insurgents.
WE'LL TAKE 60!!.....Sorry got ahead of myself. Was wondering why it was budget day today but it all makes sense now. Govt wants to get into the serious warfighting business and get all Hogged up. Next will be Arleigh Burkes and M1A2 and some Paladin's. hmmmmm, What was it on those Tui billboards?
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
and A10's are relevant to RNZAF because....


I know that they are good at what they do, but they are old and costly to maintain and don't really fit in with what we do.

Plus they have short legs. look at where we sit in the world.

England is getting new aircraft carriers, maybe we could place an order.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
and A10's are relevant to RNZAF because....


I know that they are good at what they do, but they are old and costly to maintain and don't really fit in with what we do.

Plus they have short legs. look at where we sit in the world.

England is getting new aircraft carriers, maybe we could place an order.
And we will supply the aircraft, a reverse Skyhawk deal!!
 
and A10's are relevant to RNZAF because....


I know that they are good at what they do, but they are old and costly to maintain and don't really fit in with what we do.

Plus they have short legs. look at where we sit in the world.

England is getting new aircraft carriers, maybe we could place an order.
Sorry I was being facetious there. They aren't what even I would call a match to our requirements however they are alot better than what we have now.
Hell,if the whole cabinet started some LSD stimulated departure from reason and bought them I would sign up.

The important thing is not some opportunistic buy of a less optimal system but that the last 14 years have been so unpredictable that they same people that need the serious service provision of say Health and Education also will need the even more serious provision of security and sovereignty that may well only be deliverable via the application of violence upon those that threaten NZ's supply lines. And as I understand it A-10's deliver alot of violence. I accept that future SAM systems present larger risks but the high cost of the perfect system carries the risk of turning up to the next fight with nothing. However I suspect the technology to bet on is the munition rather than the launching platform.
Sorry for the rant but this situation in NZ is going to be expensive someday.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
England is getting new aircraft carriers, maybe we could place an order.
England? :confused:

England does not have any armed forces, let alone a navy. It isn't even an administrative area, let alone an independent country. I live in England, & I think I'd have noticed if we'd suddenly got our own navy.

In other news, Prussia is getting four F125 Brandenburg class frigates. :D
 

t68

Well-Known Member
England? :confused:

England does not have any armed forces, let alone a navy. It isn't even an administrative area, let alone an independent country. I live in England, & I think I'd have noticed if we'd suddenly got our own navy.

In other news, Prussia is getting four F125 Brandenburg class frigates. :D

Interesting way to put it never really thought of it that way.

Hypotheticaly speaking if England was to become independant what sort of armed forces could you afford?

Certantly in terms of GDP and population in theory you could still be somewhat larger than the RAN/RNZN combined.

Would you be REN or still RN?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Interesting way to put it never really thought of it that way.

Hypotheticaly speaking if England was to become independant what sort of armed forces could you afford?

Certantly in terms of GDP and population in theory you could still be somewhat larger than the RAN/RNZN combined.

Would you be REN or still RN?
RN. Always was. The RN belongs to the Sovereign who historically was English.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
England? :confused:

England does not have any armed forces, let alone a navy. It isn't even an administrative area, let alone an independent country. I live in England, & I think I'd have noticed if we'd suddenly got our own navy.

In other news, Prussia is getting four F125 Brandenburg class frigates. :D
The problem being on board a Prussian naval vessel is that they expect you to wear a pickelhaube, jackboots and goose step all the time. Bit mean on the poor off duty watchkeepers below trying to sleep :D :D :D Mind you the beer would be good.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
RN. Always was. The RN belongs to the Sovereign who historically was English.
Yep, all our monarchs have been English. Sven Forkbeard, his son Cnut the Great, & his son Harold the 1st - who may have had an English mother, unlike his half-brother Hardacnut, who followed him. Then there was William the Bastard, his 2nd son William Rufus, & then the 3rd son Henry 1 - who was, at least born in England, unlike either of his parents. Back to entirely foreign with Stephen. But by 200 years later, they wer so English they even spoke it. So only 250 years of French-speaking monarchs.

Pretty English for a while after that, although a lot of 'em married abroad, & there was Philip's brief reign alongside Mary, then along come the Scottish (& French - James I & VI was 3/4 French) Stuarts. Charles I was born in Scotland to James I/VI & a Danish queen, his sons Charles II & James II were at least born in England though their mother was French, & then we had the Dutch William III. George I & II were entirely German & didn't even speak English well. At least George III did, though his queen never lost her German accent. His granddaughter Victoria was born & raised here, but all her ancestors for 5 generations were German - & she married another one.

What was that about the monarch being English? :rolling
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yep, all our monarchs have been English. Sven Forkbeard, his son Cnut the Great, & his son Harold the 1st - who may have had an English mother, unlike his half-brother Hardacnut, who followed him. Then there was William the Bastard, his 2nd son William Rufus, & then the 3rd son Henry 1 - who was, at least born in England, unlike either of his parents. Back to entirely foreign with Stephen. But by 200 years later, they wer so English they even spoke it. So only 250 years of French-speaking monarchs.

Pretty English for a while after that, although a lot of 'em married abroad, & there was Philip's brief reign alongside Mary, then along come the Scottish (& French - James I & VI was 3/4 French) Stuarts. Charles I was born in Scotland to James I/VI & a Danish queen, his sons Charles II & James II were at least born in England though their mother was French, & then we had the Dutch William III. George I & II were entirely German & didn't even speak English well. At least George III did, though his queen never lost her German accent. His granddaughter Victoria was born & raised here, but all her ancestors for 5 generations were German - & she married another one.

What was that about the monarch being English? :rolling
You've won the monthly "best" post award, where's the like button :lol3
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yep, all our monarchs have been English. Sven Forkbeard, his son Cnut the Great, & his son Harold the 1st - who may have had an English mother, unlike his half-brother Hardacnut, who followed him. Then there was William the Bastard, his 2nd son William Rufus, & then the 3rd son Henry 1 - who was, at least born in England, unlike either of his parents. Back to entirely foreign with Stephen. But by 200 years later, they wer so English they even spoke it. So only 250 years of French-speaking monarchs.

Pretty English for a while after that, although a lot of 'em married abroad, & there was Philip's brief reign alongside Mary, then along come the Scottish (& French - James I & VI was 3/4 French) Stuarts. Charles I was born in Scotland to James I/VI & a Danish queen, his sons Charles II & James II were at least born in England though their mother was French, & then we had the Dutch William III. George I & II were entirely German & didn't even speak English well. At least George III did, though his queen never lost her German accent. His granddaughter Victoria was born & raised here, but all her ancestors for 5 generations were German - & she married another one.

What was that about the monarch being English? :rolling
That reminds me of an episode of Black Adder Goes Fourth where he is interrogating Captain Darling as to whether he is a German spy, Darling claims to be as English as the King so Black Adder recites George Vs lineage, including the fact he is the Kaisers' cousin.:rolling
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I recall reading somewhere that the Royals changed their name from Battenberg to Windsor during WW1 because of the anti-German feeling in Britain during that period.
 

Oberon

Member
I recall reading somewhere that the Royals changed their name from Battenberg to Windsor during WW1 because of the anti-German feeling in Britain during that period.
Yes. And the name Mountbatten is the English translation of Battenberg.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I recall reading somewhere that the Royals changed their name from Battenberg to Windsor during WW1 because of the anti-German feeling in Britain during that period.
No, it changed from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor. The Battenbergs were another lot, though Prince Philip's mother was one, & he adopted her family name (Mountbatten, by the time he was born) in place of the one he got from his father - Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. :D
 

Oberon

Member
No, it changed from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor. The Battenbergs were another lot, though Prince Philip's mother was one, & he adopted her family name (Mountbatten, by the time he was born) in place of the one he got from his father - Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. :D
I stand corrected, thank you. Nevertheless we have all wandered :eek:fftopic :)
 
Top