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.

“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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.