Labor buys $6 billion of fighter jets
The “u” is missing so it is Australian Labor of course.
Despite Australia living in what Clark calls a benign strategic environment, they have ordered 24 Lockheed Super Hornets.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: air force, Australia
March 18th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Shows up our Nats on a scale of balls size of politicians of each side of the divide on each side of the Tasman, doesn’t it?
March 18th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Meanwhile in New Zealand our Skyhawks are nesting sites for a huge rat population and depreciating faster than Labour in the polls.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Make a great garden shed. IMO.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Dad you might just be able to afford one soon, imagine the fun you could have. I could give you the co-ordinates for my house.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am
But hey isn’t that good for us????
Someone could correct me, but don’t we (govt) have shares in Lockheed, cool socialist scum getting rich off the back of war machines.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:09 am
“I could give you the co-ordinates for my house.” Don’t bother nimby as I already know where Brokeback Mountain is and heavy bombers will be needed for the mission. What a silly person.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Incoming!
March 18th, 2008 at 11:23 am
DPF I think you’ll find they’re Boeing Super-Hornets(f18e/f’s), they’re a stop gap measure for when they retire the f111′s and when the Lockheed Martin F35′s come into service. They chose these as they’re essentially an upgraded version of the f18′s the RAF already has, and training and a majority of the parts are the same.
And it was actually the Howard govt that ordered them, Rudd et al have just confirmed the order, which is funny because if I remember correctly it was one of the defence projects they were hell bent on scrapping.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:24 am
This just throws into even starker relief the poor defence-planning environment New Zealand currently has. No air defence to speak of and hapless recent naval planning that has resulted in the increasingly lemon-like HMNZS ‘Canterbury’. (Remember HMNZS ‘Charles Upham’ anyone? Eeeek!) It is crazy to describe our region as being in a benign strategic environment in an age of borderless terrorism. Threats can come any place and at any time. Having a conventional (and unconventional) defence capacity that is able to respond to threats, both miltary and natural, as well as supporting others responding to them (i.e. Australia) is a national no-brainer. New Zealand needs to start pulling its defence weight — defence spending is akin to an insurance policy after-all. Sadly, given the Nats ‘me-too’ism lately, I can’t see things improving here any time soon.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:24 am
If we get attacked we can always throw stones at them.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:33 am
It’s time to scrap our bloody stupid anti nuclear stance, join the real world and put the USA back on our Christmas card list.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Bring back the YANKS.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Or if hijackers aim planes at out biggest buildings we could always send an Aircraft Carrier Fleet, or some nuclear subs, or half a million troops at them. Oh that’s right America had all of those and still couldn’t stop modern warfare – terrorism (well apart from the fact that it’s been around for a millennium or so).
If wiki is to be believed, a country more or less or similar comparison to NZ (except it’s in Europe the heart of the world), the sum total of the Irish Air Force is
5 Hellicopters
2 Transporters
5 Cessnas
2 Eurocopters
2 Luxury jets
8 trainer jets
Bloody saps, I bet they have to rely on NATO or the UK in time of immanent strike. What a disgrace, they should be ashamed of themselves.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:51 am
We should just skip the manned combat aircraft debate, and restart a combat/surveillance wing with UAV’s (unmanned aerial vehicles), they’d work out cheaper in the long term due to not having to pay someone to be in the cockpit (basically anyone reasonably skilled in console games can fly them, with a bit of aerial warfare theory training), and they’d be more technologically advanced than many of our neighbours.
Also we could even develop an industry in designing & building UAV’s for export to other nations, perhaps in an alliance with Israel, which seem to make half decent UAV’s at present.
We’d need some with loitering capability for long range surveillance i.e to cover our EEZ and down to the Antarctic fisheries (replacing or complementing our Orion’s. Some with a shorter range for covering our inshore fisheries, and for searching for lost boaties etc. Some supersonic or high subsonic armed ones, for combat and high speed surveillance, these could be stealth at a higher cost, but are more manoeuvrable than manned fighter aircraft, due to human weakness at taking g’s. And some small low cost semi disposable ones for assisted launch of all our navy vessels to provide an expanded envelope of sensors, and even low level offensive capability until air cover reaches them, and also smaller versions of these for the army to provide battlefield sensors, and low level air cover. All this could be developed for cheaper than the equivalent manned program, and provide us with better capabilities.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Those SuperHornets would be invaluable in fighting off invasion fleets from Vanuatu or the Chatham Islands.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Thats $250 million per plane! JEEZ!
I recall one of the Exclusive Bretheren’s pamphlets warned about the dangers of scrapping the Air Force when Japan, China and Iran were in the world! lol watch out!
I mentioned the EB as an add-on to what Danyl said about Vanuatu and the Chats, it just jogged my memory a bit…
March 18th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Stephen what has the exclusive bretheren got to do with a discussion on our failing defence force? Can you lefty creeps play any other card other than the well used EB card? Your play nimby!
March 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Well I think the protracted conflict the US is stuck with in Iraq should indicate to you that NO amount of fighter jets seems to get you out of modern warfare scenarios easily.
Perhaps it’s just as well our national defense strategy seems to be more based around making sure nobody hates us…?
March 18th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
i changed my comment dad
March 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Dad
your thoughts on the failings of the Irish and their limited air capacity. I mean if it was up to them, they’d send a couple of cessnas into combat while the president looks over from her Jetstream luxury jet.
5 Hellicopters
2 Transporters
5 Cessnas
2 Eurocopters
2 Luxury jets
8 trainer jets
Still 8 trainer jets could get some leverage as dive bombers
March 18th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Still if Iran was to attack us, you would be safe as there are no members of the Brokeback Mountain Regiment of the revolutionary Iranian guards don’t forget.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“i changed my comment dad ”
Who on Level 9 changed it? No doubt one from the trifecta of socialist namby spittles.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Back to the brave men in their flying machines, they go upitty up.
Your thoughts on a relevant comparison with the Irish Cessna Squadron?
March 18th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Paula, it was Saint Patrick’s day yesterday you stupid turd tosser.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
It’s worth visiting Global Guerillas before huffing and puffing too much about old ways of making things go boom….
Or, as Jasper Fforde would have it, “the right to arm bears”
March 18th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Not sure what that’s got to do with anything, dad. Maybe you should address the question or concede the point? (NEVARRR!!!)
March 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
shhh, no one mention the bears. The markets did once today and they didn’t get away with it
March 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
If wiki is to be believed, a country more or less or similar comparison to NZ (except it’s in Europe the heart of the world), the sum total of the Irish Air Force is
Except you have forgotten that Ireland is also protected by the very advanced Fighter Jets of the RAF.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Those SuperHornets would be invaluable in fighting off invasion fleets from Vanuatu or the Chatham Islands.
Or Indonesia.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Thats $250 million per plane! JEEZ!
Training, spares, weapons, consultants…….
You will have great difficulty trying to find out how much a single plane costs as an individual unit, the companies sell them as a package.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
…More than likely. Still.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Bevan,
does Ireland have a defense agreement with the UK? And if so, how can they have so without having an air-force.
It’s the same arguement here, we could rely on the OZ without need our own, if that’s how Ireland does it.
Still I was rather chuffed to see the Irish Cessna squadron, has a nice ring and the start of a good joke.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Dad seems happy with the Irish airforce, there is no criticism of them?
March 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
nice!!!! Aussie is also trying to get the F-22 raptor! although at this stage the US wont make it available for export..
paul – who cares? why does dad have to critisize ireland? because our airforce sucks?
once again a standard left policy.. defend a wrong by pointing out another wrong..
March 18th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
So Paul, If we’re going to copy Irelands airforce, as you seem to imply we should, don’t you think we should copy their tax structure too?
March 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Ruddy Kevin and Co are more right wing than NZ Nats and NZ labour has dragged us so far left its frightening.The no-airforce NZ is irresponsible treachery from the Vietnam war protester pretenders in parlimint and 2 frigates is friggin hopeless. Wake up O Kiwis- the Tibetan Torturers FTA Wooden Horse is coming !
March 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Only 200 million indonesians, not much space, limited resources
Just as well the Aussies are making a plan
But let us freeload
After all we have much better things to spend our money on
Kyoto
Fast Forward
Knowledge Economy
Closing the Gap
Snails
March 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Rudd was never going to change australias relationship with the US.
They are the superpower in our part of the world and plan to stay that way. god bless em!
March 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
>Thats $250 million per plane! JEEZ!
The quoted figure is a program cost over 10 years, IIRC. Which isn’t too bad for what is, in effect, the enforcement arm of Australia’s foreign policy. By having a number of options available to deploy a balanced force to back up foreign policy decisions, and by making it obvious that Australia will continue to stand alongside its allies, then Australia avoids a lot of far more expensive outcomes.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
does Ireland have a defense agreement with the UK? And if so, how can they have so without having an air-force.
Why do they need an agreement? The UK is hardly going to just let a foreign power invade and setup base in a country as close as Ireland.
It’s the same arguement here, we could rely on the OZ without need our own, if that’s how Ireland does it.
No we shouldnt. Do you think we should be a nation of bludgers? Why should Australia have to spend all the money for our defense? DO you think they should get a say in this?
March 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Tune in next week to hear Bevan explain how Canada should begin a massive military buildup to defend itself against possible invasion from Mexico.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Japan has enough conservatives who want to re-arm. I’ll start dusting off the devonport bunkers!
March 18th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
>Tune in next week to hear Bevan explain how Canada should begin a massive military buildup to defend itself against possible invasion from Mexico.
Not all military threats or foreign policy issues have to involve threat of invasion.
Joining with allies is a good way to stop aggression, regardless of how that aggression manifests itself. If a country prefers to do nothing, then it’s signaling either:
1. It is happy for a situation or issue to continue and to potentially get worse.
2. It is happy for other countries to shoulder the burden.
Neither of these applies to Australia. NZ often chooses option 2.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Finally Australia gets with the program and buys enough sophisticated fighter planes!
This region no longer has to worry that, should the aliens arrive in the next few years, we would have no “puny earthman aerocraft” to fling at their “far superior forces”.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Australia is concerned about protecting its oil and gas fields in the North. Its also worried (dont laugh) about India which has been spending billions on supersonic aircraft,submarines and an aircraft carrier but more importantly now has the capacity to launch long range air to ground supersonic missiles.
We all know (because the Greens keep reminding us) that in the future oil, gas and mineral resources are going to become more scarce, so the Aus govt are making sure they can protect them.
I have always thought it ironic that the Greens point out these things but are against us having the means to defend them in the event of a resource war.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Tune in next week to hear Bevan explain how Canada should begin a massive military buildup to defend itself against possible invasion from Mexico.
Oh this is just classic! Danyl, you have just shown how dimwitted you are and that you are debating based on emotion rather than fact. One of the key factors in Australian defense thinking is the threat from Indonesia!
March 18th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
“I’ll start dusting off the devonport bunkers!”
Really Stephen can you and Danyl really walk up hills. Learn something new everyday . I didn’t know jellyfish could climb.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
rolla-fxgt -
UAX’s for export, our EEZ, finding lost boaties, stealth surveillance, expanded sensor envelopes, seek and destroy EB’s and the Irish with low level offence until the cavalry arrives.
I guess you could do all this shit for about $ 700 million R & D, eh?
March 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
“Australia is concerned about protecting its oil and gas fields in the North.”
oh I get it. NZ should be crippling its tiny economy buying aircrafts which cost $1 billion for every four, all so we can protect our vast treasure trove of mineral resources (um …. they want our green stone?) from the “Asian menace”, which wouldn’t come near us without prior approval from the USA anyhow. Interesting line being run by the kiwiblog right here.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
“(um …. they want our green stone?)”
No the Maori’s own that just ask my mate who is doing 4 in the can. Bastard Ricky Tau where is the picnic fund money?
March 18th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
“No the Maori’s own that”
In that case the Maoris should be forced to pay for the damn things then. User pays!
March 18th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Well our local tribe could afford to buy at least 20 rubber band planes.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Another thing for the kiwiblog right to mull over.. New Zealand belongs to Echelon, a signals intelligence collection and analysis network operated on behalf of the five signatory states to the UKUSA agreement; Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
As such, Helen Clark, is likely in a better position to decide whether NZ’s security is threatened by neighbouring states, than the armchair commentators (myself included) posting here at present.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
At the risk of being a pain in the bum may I suggest that Miss Clark threatens NZ’s security by calling people “creeps” and “feral inbreds.”
March 18th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
oh I get it. NZ should be crippling its tiny economy buying aircrafts which cost $1 billion for every four, all so we can protect our vast treasure trove of mineral resources (um …. they want our green stone?) from the “Asian menace”, which wouldn’t come near us without prior approval from the USA anyhow. Interesting line being run by the kiwiblog right here.
Oh stop the drama! Spending $1 billion dollars on defense equipment will not cripple our economy, especially if the government uses their brain and finances them over 10-20 years – not like they absolutely have to pay for them using current funds (imagine if we all have to pay for capital expenses that way!), and then there are lease options…..
BTW, what planes are you thinking of – $1 billion will buy a hell of a lot of modern and extremely capable aircraft from Sweden – last I heard the package price was close to $50 million.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Another thing for the kiwiblog right to mull over.. New Zealand belongs to Echelon, a signals intelligence collection and analysis network operated on behalf of the five signatory states to the UKUSA agreement; Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
As such, Helen Clark, is likely in a better position to decide whether NZ’s security is threatened by neighbouring states, than the armchair commentators (myself included) posting here at present.
If being a signatory to a bloody agreement stopped conflicts then the world would never have experienced WW1 or WW2. Maybe someone should tell Belgium they shouldnt have been invaded, I mean they had a Treaty!
March 18th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
One more thing.
To, get a better handel on the geo-stregic realities of our time, a few here could do with reading “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives” by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor under the administration of President Jimmy Carter.
It really does show just how much of a geo-strategic backwater New Zealand is.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
1rodhide
I’ve always felt we should have purchased the F16A and B’s for USD $100 million,(not billions as you say) and used them to support and complement Australias forces. In particular they could have been used defensively to provide air defense for Aussies AWACs aircraft,(now they are billions each) and leave the attacking to the F35′s
The F16 A is not clapped out as Clark would have us believe but is still a very very competative aircraft, especially with the upgrades they had. Whats the bet the US would have allowed us to sell the Skyhawks et all for the NZD $100 mio which means the cost would have only been $30 million or so. We could have done our part in helping Oz instead of being the bludgers of the region. Maybe we could use our $24 million snails to protect us!! (nooo , not the dreaded snail slime weapon)
Also what price our own coal, gas and oil?
March 18th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“If being a signatory to a bloody agreement stopped conflicts”
Who’s saying that? What I’m saying is that Helen Clark has access to intelligence information that will probably never be made public, and so has a better idea of what’s going on in the world than me, you and DPF.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
“As such, Helen Clark, is likely in a better position to decide whether NZ’s security is threatened by neighbouring states, than the armchair commentators (myself included) posting here at present.”
is that how we stoppe dthe bombing of the rainbow warrior?
cause from memory everyone knew it was gonna happen and didnt tell us.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
RRM says:
You think sending in Winston to soften them up by ordering their media around and hogging every photo op and then following up with Phil Goff to bore them rigid is going to make them like us? :-O
1rodhide says:
Correct me if I’m wrong, roger, but didn’t that fearless and always accurate investigative journalist (and darling of the left) Nicky Hager claim in yet another stunningly well-researched tome that NZ actually gets 5/8 of SFA from the Echelon network? We help collect it, yes, but it’s fed to the US who then decide how much of it we get to see. And we get to see very little.
I’ve been told a similar tale by people in the know so I’ve always felt that Hager had actually tripped over the truth in this instance.
So, given that our access to “intelligence information that will probably never be made public” is limited, and given that a polsci lecturer with no real world experience is probably less qualified than many commenters (including you, roger) to make judgements about what little we do receive, I’m not exactly optimistic that we’re in any position to assess the strategic environment, benign or otherwise.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
correct rex.. we see buggar all of that intel. we are the yanks bitch
March 18th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
1Rodhide
Err, have you forgotten about the HUGE deposits of oil that have been found off the bottom of the South Island. The thick end of a Bil dollars worth I believe.
And yes, people have often said we will never be invaded. They said that before WWII. The fact is, we came incredibly close to being invaded, hence the reason for the Mission Bay guns, and the huge vault built into the mountainside in Wellington to hide the national treasures.
But as they say, the only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history. Like a typical leftie you obviously have not learned, othewise you wouldn’t be a leftie.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Captain Crab,
I absolutely concur on the F16s. They are an awesome fighter, it’s why the Israelies use them virtually exclusively. If it wasn’t for Stealth (and at a bil a pop, those are beyond our reach) they would still be current machines. Look beautiful too.
The scuttlebutt around Parliament is that Clark has finally done the Rip Van Wrinkle trick and woken up the fact that everyone else knows, and that is the disbandment of the air force was a serious mistake. Let’s spend a bil on the LAV’s instead shall we. Great idea! But, oh yes, we can’t use them, because we don’t have any aircraft that can take them anywhere.
And 1Rodhide, this is the smart PM that you say knows everything about our defense requirements and can make good decisions based on good intelligence…? What a joke.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
>NZ should be crippling its tiny economy buying aircrafts which cost $1 billion for every four, all so we can protect our vast treasure trove of mineral resources (um …. they want our green stone?) from the “Asian menace”
No, because that would assume that the only threat to NZ’s interests is invasion. NZ’s interests extend around the world, rather than just to our neighbourhood. A war between, say, North and South Korea that drags in Japan will certainly impact NZ’s employment and interest rates. Therefore NZ should stand alongside other countries with similar interests to ensure that those interests aren’t negatively effected. Possessing military forces is a way of ensuring that this foreign policy process is enforceable, otherwise you’re reduced to ineffectual lecturing. Which is what Clark often does.
As for “crippling its tiny economy”… NZ managed to afford a squadron or more of strike aircraft from the 1940s through to 2000 or so, and had per capita defence spending lower than our allies for all of that time. If the situation now is that NZ, alone, cannot afford that then that is yet another reason to kick Labour out for letting the NZ economy fall behind Australia’s.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Bevan
so it’s OK for the Irish to call on the UK but not OK for us to call on OZ.
Glad we are clear with that. I just look forward to the day when with Indonesia a sneeze away and then some evil overlord empire running NZ, then OZ will feel oh so safe. Of course they’ll help us out.
Hey and also I’m not saying we should have their airforce, that would mean a massive scaling back, and comparisons with tax are a dead tory to a red rag (so to speak). Should we then also have their cripling insurance structures. I’m just saying if its ok for Ireland to have a cessna squadron, we aren’t doing too bad, considering our willingness to punch above our weight around the world.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Bogus,
apart from your scarey fascination of the lines of the fighter jet
” Let’s spend a bil on the LAV’s instead shall we. Great idea! But, oh yes, we can’t use them, because we don’t have any aircraft that can take them anywhere.”
I can’t see how many of the LAVs we’ll be towing behind an F16. Funny if that’s the argument, then a strike force isn’t the way to go is it, some decent super carriers would be the thing.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
cause a LAV vs an F16 would come out on top..
March 18th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Paul
I never said we would be towing the LAV’s behind an F16. What I said was, we have no aircraft of any sort that can take them anywhere. Read my comment. I said the F16′s are a great aircraft, but instead of buying them the govt utterly wasted a bil of public money on LAV’s that cannot be used for anything as they can’t be taken anywhere. They are a massive waste of public money.
The only thing we have that can take them anywhere is the old orange boat which has no defense capability. Essentially, NZ is naked. Anyone with anything more than a rowboat could invade us anytime they want. It is unbelievably niaive to rely on Australia. If we are attacked, Aussie will have been attacked first. It is very unlikely they will have any spare capacity to help us.
We used to have Anzus, you may remember, it was set up because NZ was nearly raped and pillaged by the Japanese in WW2. It meant the most powerful nation on earth would drop everthing and rescue us if we needed it. But that was thrown away, and then we ran down our defense force to nothing. For some reason, NZ’ers think this was a good idea.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
What Liabore threw away with the Skyhawks was not a bunch of ageing planes but the institutional knowledge that goes into running front line military strike operations, and the inter-operability capability that allowed the navy and army to practice its own operations with simulated air strikes. If a threat had come into view the US/UK would have upgraded the hardware in seconds, and we would have had an effective counter. Now we have nothing.
It was the first part of a deliberate strategy to de-fang our military which has proceeded apace with the lions share of the budget going towards purchase of equipment without anything pointy in it.
This dangerous move broke the first duty of govt: to protect its citizens from internal and EXTERNAL threats. It showed me at the time that Clark is prepared to put her own interests above those of the nation, because I refuse to believe she didn’t know the risk she chose to take.
And if any lefty fuckhead says: show me the threat, that’s not the point. Defense is about preparedness and operational capability and inter-operability with all three forces and with other allies. Clark has consistently and time and again acted to degrade that over time. What about that don’t you understand?
Furthermore, if you even ask the question, you betray your fundamental ignorance. Several examples were mentioned above. The world changes quickly. It takes years even decades to build operational capability esp in areas such as strike fighters. Even if YOU can’t see a threat doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and just because there’s no threat now doesn’t mean there won’t be one shortly. For example, Fallon was just fired from CentCom (he says he stepped down but that’s bullshit). He was the last lynchpin against Cheney starting something with Iran. China has treaties with Iran and so does Russia and both have indicated they won’t tolerate anything happening there (they want Iran’s gas). Get the picture, or do I have to connect the dots with respect to what might happen in our region if the US and China start behaving aggressively?
March 18th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Reid
Hole in one.
This is reflected in the major problems they are having in even recruiting military staff. No one wants to work for a military force that is a joke. We are even having serious troubles trying to practice maneuvers with the Aussies and the Americans. They are laughing at our niaviete.
Unfortunately, these flow on effects were not thought of by Clark. Her decision to scrap the air force would have been a great university debate, which I’m sure she would have won, but real life is much more complicated.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Bogusnews, I really believe she did think about it and did it deliberately. She’s a lefty, she’s an academic, and she’s a Vietnam War Protester. Add to that her colossol arrogance and you’ve got a person who thinks she knows everything.
Ever since she first came in, she has been bent on this, there’s a reason I believe why it was one of her first big announcements. She has covered it up in the public and the moron media’s minds by carefully cultivating her veteran-friendly image, but her every move on the Defence front has been carefully designed to lead us into the situation you describe.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. She is a traitor to NZ.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
She should be charged with treason in the first instance and sent to prison. She is a dangerous women and she has built her career on lies.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
“Defense is about preparedness and operational capability”
You see Skyscrapers should always be prepared, thats why I guess they go to Scout Group.
So chaps, chops away, who’s buying shares in Lockhead when National get in, they are obviously going to restore the airforce to it’s former glory. I’d love on of the billion dollar stealth bombers. We need to shed more cluster bombs all around the world.
Oh hang on, how many new state of the art fighter strike forces planes did Bolger et al buy, sod all that’s right. What was Nationals previous policy on nuclear free. What is Nationals policy on strike fighter purchases now, what no policy nothing till election time, but that’s too late I want the information now so I could make an informed decision.
Why did the airforce name his boeing 727 as “spud one”, was it his nickname, or was it his pile of potatoes he was hoarding to buy new planes?
Dad why stop at prison, you have mentioned in the past that the witch should be burnt at the stake, I can see you now flamed torch in your hand the sweat glistening down your manly brow, the glint in your eye as another leftie is expelled from this earth, oh the power, oh the thrill.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Cark has overseen the ransacking of our military capability, turning our once proud defence forces into underarmed “peace keepers”
History will judge our generation very unkindly.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:46 am
I will not address the issue of the Australian stop-gap purchase since it involves their strategic position rather than New Zealand’s. However, the comment about UAVS in interesting given the limitations of the seaborne patrol fleet within the EEZ. It will have to address the submarine aspect in order to be justified, but in principle sounds viable. UAVs could also assist NZ ground missions abroad, which relates to what is mentioned below.
Since there is a company in NZ shopping a rotary UAV platform that has attracted the interest of the Syrians and Iranians, among others, perhaps NZ defense planners might take another look at that option (the company has already offered it to the NZDF but did not get a bite). If the specs are true the platform has both strategic and tactical potential as well as multi-role functions.
Given the nature of NZDF missions for the forseeable future in light of the latest White Papers and given disposition within the MOD and NZDF, a stand-alone close air support component is needed. To economise, dual-purpose platforms could be used (such as the F-18), but the reality is that CAS is what NZ troops need in forward locations (doing peacekeeping, military engineering or the real deal) when allied air support is otherwise engaged and NZ blood is at risk. The A-I0 and a host of American surlpus rotary vehicles, to say nothing of various Euro and Russian options are on the menu at affordable prices. The choice is diplomatic rather than military.
NZ bought LAVs for no discernable mission, but it gained favor with the Canadian/US consortium that made them. Their deployment in conflict zones has been problematic. It appears that the diplomatic part of the equation outweighed the technical requirements of the NZDF missions at hand. Since it is not a matter of if but when that NZ re-establishes the combat air wing, the question is about its conformation, then its price. CAS come cheaper than tactical strike.
When resurrecting the combat air arm, diplomatic niceties need to be considered, but the nature of the mission defines the weapons platform that should be procured and applied. For the RNZAF the mission lies on the ground in foreign theaters as opposed to the tactical airspace above Aotearoa. It would be nice and diplomatic to buy and give a tactical strike wing to the Australians in a pinch, but NZ taxpayer money would be much better served if funding went to a CAS wing to back up NZDF deployments in hostile theaters (even if under mulitlateral peacekeeping command).
In a nation that has a comparative advantage in top-dressers given the terrain in which they operate, surely there is room to develop a simliar advantage in CAS. Who knows, it might be an exportable commodity given these globalised times in which multinational security missions are the preferred rule rather than the exception. After all, the chances of an Indonesian invasion are nill and a tactical air strike capability cannot prevent planned attacks by commandeered civilian aircraft.
It is, however, time to stop comparing NZ defense and security requirements to those of Australia. Other than cultural affinity and political ties, the geostrategic positions of the two countries are dissimilar and thus not comparable. Security conservatives may wish that it not to be the case, but a pragmatic assessment of the NZ threat environment and security interests advises in favour of an independent yet roboust military capability across the full spectrum of conventional force (say, at about 2 percent of GDP), with the emphasis on special operations, maritime patrol, close air support and civil-military relations (e.g. combat medicine and engineering). Judicious emphasis on the above will allow NZ to continue to punch above its weight when it comes to international security while maintaining the (image of) autonomy that is its most important diplomatic asset.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Paul,
Once again, you have shown you don’t really grasp the situation.
Have you forgotten that National had committed to buy (I think 12 from memory) F16′s from America? Clark set up Quigley to look into this fully expecting him to rubbish the deal. To her consternation, Quigley said it was a good deal, and that it should go ahead.
Predictably, Clark threw the report in the bin and cancelled the contract. So when you ask “Oh hang on, how many new state of the art fighter strike forces planes did Bolger et al buy”. National tried to upgrade our strike wing, which would have been a great idea, Labour has left us naked.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Paul Buchanan, thanks for contributing to the discussion. Your considerable understanding is most appreciated to hear.
Regarding the difference in geostrategic positions between NZ and Aus, I agree with everything you say. In addition however I have perhaps wrongly also perceived threats coming from South China/SE Asia in the event that a regional power decides to attack Australia for its mineral resources. In that event I don’t think it likely they would stop at Australia but would also go after us for our food production. Is that something NZ planners should be also taking into account?
March 19th, 2008 at 9:22 am
So chaps, chops away, who’s buying shares in Lockhead when National get in, they are obviously going to restore the airforce to it’s former glory. I’d love on of the billion dollar stealth bombers. We need to shed more cluster bombs all around the world.
And here is a good example what happens when you let your emotion get in the way of intellect.
1. National has already stated they will not reinstate the Combat Wing of the Air Force.
2. The US would never sell us or anyone else Stealth Bombers.
3. We along with a great number of other nations have laws banning the use of Cluster Munitions.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Bogus: The National order of those F-16s was exactly the type of ill-conceived political/diplomatic ,rather than military threat-driven purchase that I mentioned earlier. As with the LAVs, it was ordered by the Shipley government, which tells you something about the perspective of her security team. It was appropriate to kill off the F-16 order (which was itself a cancelled Pakistan purchase due to human rights concerns in that country), but it was not appropriate to disband the tactical air wing entirely. The good news is that nothing last forever, and changes in the strategic environment will dictate the need to adapt and reconfigure the NZDF, including its air component. Thus, at some point down the road the decision to disband the tactical air wing will be reconsidered and reversed given the requirements of future threat and (allied or not) operational scenarios.
The question is what does NZ need by way of tactical combat aircraft? I vote for CAS, be it fixed wing or rotary. As I said before, there are multiple suppliers and even the US has enough excess inventory at the Davis-Monthan AFB “boneyard” to cut a cost-efficient deal.
Many argue that the tactical air wing was more important symbolically than practically, as a show of our commitment to our allies, Australia in particular. Having a CAS capability in, say, Afghanistan (or even East Timor during the post-independence troubles), would have done exactly that while giving NZRAF pilots operational experience above and beyond joint training exercises with the allies. In my opinion the bottom line is that if we look ahead to future operational scenarios and requirements, a stand-alone CAS working with ground troops engaged in low intensity conflicts is the way to go.
Reid: I find it implausible that any regional power would attack Australia within the foreseeable future. Besides Australian military capabilities and the response from its closest ally (the US), there is no country anywhere along the Western Pacific Rim that can marshall and project the type of offensive force required to attack and hold the Australian landmass in order to access its mineral wealth. To be sure the PRC is developing its offensive capabilities, but that is exactly what Australian, US and Japanese strategic planners are taking into account when developing future combat scenarios. Indonesia is a defensively-oriented, land-based military with a counter-guerrilla focus and virtually no lift capability to project troops abroad. Further afield, India is upgrading its offensive forces but has more immediate geostrategic concerns to occpy its attention rather than planning an invasion of a friendly state. I do not wish to be facetious here. I just do not see the possibility, based on extant and near future capabilities, of any hostile state being able to attack Australia successfully, much less hold ground there. As for NZ, the same issues mentioned above apply, and any attack would bring a military rejoinder from traditional allies as well as others (such as Singapore) on principled as well as strategic grounds.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
But its not necessarily that we need to get attacked, even, it is that in times of international meltdown, who knows what kind of opportunistic raiding might occur that could be very hurtful to NZ on account of our lack of real combat aircraft? When WW2 broke out, there wasn’t any danger of the Germans actually invading NZ, but they did succeed in cutting NZ off from the rest of the world for a while and even paralysed our coastal shipping by sailing a few lightly armed Q-ships around the place. And our Gummint at that time had scrapped the few bomb-dropping planes we did have about 2 years prior………DUH.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Bevan,
once again sorry that the tongue in my cheek wasn’t evident in the text (hard to do when you can’t see someones face).
I was merely taking the piss out of those who wish to see a return to the good old days of an air combat wing.
Mind you if they are stealth, do we know if we have them or not? Spooky. I mean after all we do/don’t have an SAS, and there is/isn’t a MI6 building on the Thames at Vauxhall
and once again if you are taking this tread too seriously, I’m having a giggle again, everyone knows that there isn’t a MI6 building on the Thames at Vauxhall
March 19th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Philbest
“who knows what kind of opportunistic raiding might occur that could be very hurtful to NZ”
Could one suggest that in the case of global meltdown, a backwater that takes forever to get to (Dunedin is the furtherest place on the globe from London – Invercargill is closer), would it not be more possible that any raping and pillaging of NZ, might just actually occur within the realms of the cyber world, the govt bank accounts, secrets etc. Really there are no reds on the door step.
WWII was another time and place, if anything Iraq has shown us that, or else Russia would have sided with the Iraquis and all hell would have broke loose.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Also ditto the other comments re Paul B’s imput, nice to see some reasoned input from such an informative source, many thanks for that.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:39 am
I was merely taking the piss out of those who wish to see a return to the good old days of an air combat wing.
I know you were taking the piss, just couldnt miss the opportunity for some dry humour….
What is wrong with wanting a return to the ‘good old days’ of having an Air Combat Wing? The Skyhawks were used for a hell of a lot more than patroling our skies armed with Sidewinders. Whilst they were never deployed operationally to a combat theatre they were used in training for our troops and warships in readyness excersises for when those forces have been deployed.
Mind you if they are stealth, do we know if we have them or not? Spooky. I mean after all we do/don’t have an SAS, and there is/isn’t a MI6 building on the Thames at Vauxhall
The only stealth warplane we could afford would be of the paper variety.
and once again if you are taking this tread too seriously, I’m having a giggle again, everyone knows that there isn’t a MI6 building on the Thames at Vauxhall
Some of us do actually take the security of our nation, and the effectiveness of our Armed Forces seriously.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Here’s an article on US Army plans for UAVs.