Air Combat Wing
The Dom Post reports on National saying it is unlikely to reinstate the air combat wing of the RNZAF if it wins office.
This has been a near certainty since National failed to win office in 2002. The longer one is from a decision, the harder it is to over-turn it. In the case of the air combat wing you have real personnel problems as many have gone off to work overseas, and are most unlikely want to come back to NZ if their job tenure may only be six or nine years until Labour gains office again.
This is why parties are so keen to avoid being one term Governments. Most of your policies can be over-turned if you have only been in for three years. It is much much harder once they have been in for six or nine years.
For example Labour removed choice and competition for accident compensation insurance in 2000 after National introduced it in 1998/99. Now if National had done it in 1995, then there is no way in hell Labour would have been able to remove the choice that people had got used to.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:15 am
National introduced it in 1998/99. Now if National had done it in 1995, then there is no way in hell Labour would have been able to remove the choice that people had got used to.
This is an interesting political phenomenon that I call “defending the status quo, whatever the status quo is.”
Every existing policy platform has a core constituency that will fight like hell to prevent its being changed, no matter how good (or bad) the proposed changes are.
However, once change has taken place, even the most radical of changes, the new policy platform quickly becomes the status quo with its own core constituency prepared to fight like hell to prevent its being changed.
Sometimes I marvel that there is change at all, so vociferous are the attacks on it.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Time for a change then eh?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:53 am
As much as I would love to have a fighter wing back in NZ, I can’t see the majority of people approving of the billions it would cost to build a decent one from scratch.
If national come out with this as policy before the election, they will be giving Labour the target they have been waiting for. It will be very easy to turn any debate on this issue into an emotional quagmire.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Change – a wonderful tool used to provide the illusion of progress!
August 27th, 2007 at 10:00 am
This is disingenuous David. Based on this change in National’s policy, I’m assuming National now support Labour’s decision. How is any alternative understanding possible?
[DPF: Paul - what absoloute nonsense. That is like saying Labour agrees with National's 1991 benefit cuts because they did not reverse them in 1999. You are the one being totally disingenuous to suggest not repealing something means you now support it.]
August 27th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Lack of Progress – a wonderful tool used by Labour to, um, show us they’re a rudderless, powerless ship about to be wrecked on the rocks of public opinion.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Regardless of how an election might go, both parties have deeply scored their presence on the future. It’s going to be difficult to move away from the nuke stance, antiwar, native logging, Fiscal Responsibility Act, socialised health care, ACC by Govt., Maori seats, MMP and any of a number of other policies.
Sometimes I feel we are simply governed by icons, not people.
JC
August 27th, 2007 at 10:54 am
What a lot of people are forgetting is that the Labour Party initially reneged on a deal done by National which would have replaced the A4 with F16 c and d variants. This was a full squadron of aircraft, plus spares, training, basically a full package for $500M. The aircraft had been identified and were ready to come out of storage following a cancelled order from the Pakistan Government.
Informed Defence commentators from around the world have referred to this as the deal of the century!
The decison to turn this down was based solely on ideology.
To now attemtp to rebuild this capability from scratch is cost prohibitive, so it would now seem that the Labour Party decision to scrap the Air Combat wing rather than maintain it cost New Zealand more than it realised! 60 years of histroy thrown away on the basis of a flawed ideaology!
August 27th, 2007 at 11:08 am
“60 years of histroy thrown away on the basis of a flawed ideaology!”
or if a past post is to be believed, out of revenge on the airforce for humiliating a young and unattractive Helen Clark.
makes as much sense as an isolated soveriegn nation destroying it’s own airforce for idealogical reasons!
August 27th, 2007 at 11:09 am
David, your example is entirely incorrect. Immediately on taking office in 1999 they improved the provision of state housing, increased the minimum wage, removed asset testing on the elderly… since then there’s be the progressive development of WFF. Labour has not only reversed what National did in 1991, they’ve developed a new framework for social security.
Whereas National, in announcing the earth in not flat and NZ will not be involved in first strike warfare has simply woken up – credit to Key, he can deny the stupidity of the earlier position.
[DPF: Nice spin but you ignore the actual point I made. They have never ever reversed the 1991 benefits cuts. For a single person on a benefit the levels have not incraesed one cent in real terms. And Key has not said anything about the desirability of a strike capability - it is merely an acknowledgement that setting one up from scratch is not feasible. That is very very different to saying one agrees scrapping it was a good idea. ]
August 27th, 2007 at 11:18 am
“……..progressive development of WFF” or the:
How- to-turn-as-many-as-possible-into-beneficiaries- instead-of-taxing them-less-and-allowing-them-to-look-after-themselves, policy.
“…….a new framework for social security.”
Yep, a capture all policy, in a government can stick their shit into any aspect of anyones lives, kinda way.
And hasn’t the “social security” of NZ improved markedly in the past 9 years? NOT. Social dependancy yes, security, no way.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:37 am
CraigM, that’s a matter for debate. Were you going to make a point beyond slogans?
My point was that National’s change in policy is precisely that, yet another shift – this time from vitriolic criticism circa 1999 to passive agreement in 2007… I think David’s post is a nice soft-spin to cover the fact that they’ve entirely changed their minds.
[DPF: Just to prove how silly Paul is being in trying to blow this up, National's policy in 2005 wasn't to reinstate the wing either. This is not a big change]
August 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Paul
The policy change is exactly that, but this needs to be put in to context.
When the initial purchase of F16 C and D was announced, it would have married new technology to existing capability, a capability that already existed.
To bring this capability on to force now would not only require a purchase of Aircraft, but also a complete reintroduction of pilot and groundcrew training, and a redevelopment from no capability to full cabability. This cannot be done cheaply, in fact I doubt if this can be done at all.
This is something that should have been considered more fully when the original flawed decision to disband the strike capability of the RNZAF was taken.
It’s all very well to decide to leave the defence of our nation to our Allies… oh hang on, haven’t we pissed them all off too?
Let’s go to the UN instead, because we all know how successful THEY have been in any form of conflict!
This is, let’s not forget, a Labour Government where the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Disarmament are the same person!
August 27th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
ROWIWOR,
You make some fair points – none of this would not have been known to National when they decried the government’s decision however. Three terms is a while and defence policy has shifted – not nearly as significantly and you suggest I’d argue – and National did need to come up with something credible. What I objected to in David’s initial post was that he appeared to be suggesting it was impossible for National to stick with their earlier policies – I don’t agree (hence the discussion about welfare etc).
I think against some expectation, Labour has led a reasonable defence strategy and resourced it accordingly. NZ commitments are comparatively and historically high, what more would you have government do? Defence of the nation is not something done only by the airforce; NZ’s defence strategy must be as much about trade, foreign affairs, aid, peace-keeping etc.
I suspect we’ll not agree, but disarmament is one element of defence and I’m NOT an advocate of no defence policy/spending; that is just naive. How about you not characterise my views as being so ridiculous and I’ll not call you a warmongerer?
August 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Paul W,
I would never call your views ridiculous. As for Labours defence strategy, it isn’t one! We are a country entirely surrounded by water. A sound defence stategy for a country surrounded by water is to develop your Airborne and Seabourne Forces.
Our Air combat capability is now nil.
Our Sea Combat capability is reduced by 50%.
Our Army, is well served by LAV’s, Pinzgauers, and a high calibre of personnel, but the last time I looked, LAV’s don’t float.
The new Sealift ship CANTERBURY, is a fine idea, but isn’t that to land troops on OTHER countries?
The Labour Governmenr has treated our Defence Force not as a national resource to be safeguarded, but as an extention to their foreign poilicy aims. If the Iraq war had been given a tick in the box by the UN our troops would have been sent in as quick as you like so the chest thumping could continue by our government saying “Look what we are doing!”
As for calling me a warmonger, I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth!
August 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Do we realistically need an Air Combat Wing? Would those funds not be better spent on search and rescue and air support capabilities?
August 27th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Well Pascal, can you see into the future?
August 27th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
A big nonsense always trumps a small nonsense.
Air combat wing is for countries that can afford it.
The hardware is budget busting.
Only possible use is against a hijacked aircraft to be used as a bomb by the religion of peace. A very remote possibility now hijack response doctrine has changed completely.
The Aussie F18s are many hours away and will need an enroute refuel.
Life is a risk, this is not a bad one.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
There have been a few comments that the RNZAF Air combat cabability has been lost.
If anyone has driven past Ohakea anytime over the past 6 years you may have seen the Macchi jet trainers flying in the circuit, they are operated by RNZAF pilots and serviced by RNZAF technicians. They are maintained in a fully servicable state for possible sale as a “going concern”
While the A4 Skyhawks have been mothballed, the RNZAF still retain a creditable Air combat cabability that would quickly be able to be regenerated into full service
August 27th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Didn’t know that Nico, Macchis can be armed up enough for straight and level airline work.
Problem solved.
No more equipment follies…..please.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
“Do we realistically need an Air Combat Wing?”
Do we realistically need any military capability at all?
Not in peace time.
Like any form of insurance a lot of it comes down to a gamble. I would argue though that an air combat capability is critical to anyone fighting a modern war.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Don’t need an Air Combat Wing? No use apart from intercepting a hijacked airline?
Well, insurance is no use until your house burns down either! And it’s impossible to insure the house AFTER the fire!
Why do we need an air combat capability anyway? Well, if we decide to send CANTERBURY in to harms way to land troops, it would be really nice to have some air cover. Borrow Australia’s? Well, borrowing air cover worked so well in Crete didn’t it!
Additionally, during the conflict in East Timor, our Skyhawks were stationed in Darwin, and their presence did restrict the operations of a few opposing forces.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
There appears to be two discussions going on here. One on whether or not we need to increase funding for the NZ defence force and another on whether or not Key’s reversal of policy is significant.
On the latter issue, I believe Key’s done the right thing by dropping the earlier policy to develop an airforce combat unit. Whether he’ll be seen as a flip-flopper is another matter. David’s soft release approach may or may not be a strategy to make like its no big deal…
August 27th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Actually Paul, I beleive the two to be linked at a fundamental level.
The funding does need to be increased, if only to address the woeful inadequacy of the salary of the personnel who serve in our defence force. A qualified Private, Aircraftsman or Able Rating is paid less than 50% of the salary of a Police Constable, and even less than hi or her Australian Counterpart.
The issue of funding links with the change or policy from National, in that they are aware the funding does need incresing to reflect a need to increase capacity, but at what cost. Our capacity has been pre-determined by the last 9 years of labour policy, and as such to step away from that now will entail the redirection of millions of dollars of expenditure to no feasable end. National would love to re-introduce an Air Combat wing, but it just isn’t possible under current fiscal constraints! It is not a flip flop, it is a neccesary policy change that reflects the current situation. I’m all for a little flexibility in government policy, the alternative governs now!
August 27th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I for one would like to see the Aermacchi Sqn reformed and it can be done.
There is still enough corporate knowledge with RNZAF to get least 4-6 frames back into air with full crews and i would even say a number of ex 75, 2 and 14Sqn personnel that are still living in NZ would sign back up if giving the chance. (have a look oldfriends wedsite etc re: comments section)
My reason for reforming 14Sqn will allow:
The Navy to be better trained to deal with air attack’s both in a hostile and friendly environment than the moment.
Provide Close Air Support training for the Army, remember the Army stills trains for its green role
Be able to trained up JTAC’s (for the old school out there FAC’s) the last kiwi to call in airstike was RNZAF officer in Bosnia in mid 90′s as UN observer which leads to this question how does NZ SAS trains it JTAC’s and maintan there qualifications in peacetime? and from own personel expencene i feel the Kiwi Hec crews are not as shit hot in there low level flying/ tac flying now as before they got training in low level flying in the macchi’s before they went to the hec’s.
The macchis can almost carry the ordnance as the A4′s.
As a Raafie in my trade i get payed $51,137.97 gross AUS. I’ve just gone up a pay grade so this figure will change, i’m in non tech trade and waiting my for Cpl’s.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Given the choice of spending $800M on APCs that have trouble getting into a Herc, are not compatable with anything the Aussies have, and are used to pick up the morning tea at Woodburn, and $500m on the F16 deal, I know what I would have prefered.
Why wait until the Religion of peace gets here? It would be far better to take on any attacking force as far away from our shores as possible. That can only be done with an Air Force.
If we are unable to bring back a strike wing, then we should do a deal with the Aussies where we do all the basic training of their pilots here, plus a number of Kiwis, who are then sent through the Aussie system to continue their training as fighter pilots etc.
At least this way we would be seen to be doing our share in the defence of our region.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Guys, get real. It would be good if NZ hadn’t been deprived of its Air Combat Wing by a bunch of clapped out 60s era hippies who danced in Wellington flats while marijuana smoke drifted in the air and Che Guevara posters hung on the walls.
It would be fine if NZ’s Air Combat Wing hadn’t been destroyed by a party lead by a woman who is a leading light of Socialist International, who once picked coffee for the Sandinistas and according to journalist Bernard Moran, was nominated (in documents discovered in a raid on their headquarters) as the NZ contact for the Communist Party of the Philippines New Peoples’ Army.
It would be great if NZ’s Air Combat Wing hadn’t been destroyed by the left wing zealot Helen Klark who in 1984, was the pivotal influence in ensuring that United States warships were banned from New Zealand waters and the enactment of anti-nuclear legislation.
It would be great if NZ had the financial resources to rebuild the Air Combat Wing. But we can’t, because that would cost real money. Real economies (like Singapore, same population, roughly the same workforce) can afford a working defence force (will real warplanes) but clapped out socialist economies churning paper money and carrying legions of bludgers and parasites who vote for more and more handouts every election will never equal that feat, no matter whether they’re led by Helen Klark or John Key or fucken Homer Simpson.
The only thing that will change NZ, and bring about a state of mind where the population feel a genuine need to pay their way in the free world, is a major cultural attitude shift. After three terms of “progressive” government, and policies aimed at the deliberate destruction of concepts such as self reliance, pride and independence, that’s an outcome that is at least three generations away.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:39 am
I agree Redbaiter, the only problem is “three generations” will be too late! The religion of peace will be well established by then. They are allready here. I was in a taxi the other night, the driver was from Afganistan (nothing wrong with that in itself), he is a student and works for the UN? His opinion was the Talaban were pretty good rulers and he supported them, and he would definately prefer them to the Americans! Who is responsible for letting these dangerous f…wits into our country??
August 28th, 2007 at 10:57 am
The multiculturalists. Dangerous out of touch dreamworld fuckwits.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
We can barely afford politician’s study tours and $4mill payouts to TV personalities, a fighter capability would destroy us.
Rely on a long term threat build is all we can do.
Neither Aust nor US will involve themselves in combat on our behalf in the short term, such is the pissed offedness from former allies.
The blessing is that anything that threatens NZ will threaten Aust.
Though they’ve had NZdefence bludging up to the earlobes.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 am
I have listed all my personal reasons why I think New Zealand needs Fighter Planes.
let me know what you think,
http://muzzerino.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-zealand-needs-fighter-planes.html