GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12956 posts, RR: 79 Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2761 times:
Bad news for the RNZAF with the fast jets going, but good for the RAF with their pilot shortage, same happened for the Fleet Air Arm when the RAN's A4's were retired, some pilots found their way over here on Sea Harriers.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2708 times:
Pacific, right now you can't do anything at all...
There is no need for longrange transports when those aircraft have no bases to land on when they return because those have been bombed by unopposed enemies.
Your country has made the same mistake many smaller European countries made in the 1920s (and are now making again I have to admit) to think that you don't need to be able to defend yourself because there is no immediate enemy.
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2699 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2697 times:
Jwenting - of course you are right, we are unable now or previuously to defend ourselves against a determined attacker. However NZ could spend 50% of GDP and still not be able to do so. Our population is tiny and area to defend is huge.
Much better to acknowledge reality and concentrate resources. For the airforce that is IMHO 3 areas, namely maritime reconnasince/search and rescue, logistic support for the Army and Navy i.e. fixed wing and rotar transport, anti-submarine/search and rescue choppers for the Navy.
Now weather the savings from scrapping fighters is passed on to those areas as promised is another issue but I still think it was the best idea given the resources available.
Can you really compare NZ to small european countries ? Who will attack us and why would they want to ?
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2699 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2672 times:
L-188 you know as well as I do that the purchase price of those planes was not the issue, rather it was the cost of keeping them flying and maintaining the infrastructure to do so. Those are the costs that are being saved and I am pretty sure you know that.
KD - Polls are next to useless. Yes, 70% may have wanted them retained but if you also asked them if they were willing to pay more tax or accept cut backs in other services to do so they would have said no. The public are pig-ignorant and short-sighted about most things, governments can't afford to be.
No one has yet said what enemies these planes were defending against and how well they would have done so. Let's get 3 or 4 Nuclear aircraft carriers while we are at it to make sure NZ is really safe.
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2699 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2661 times:
OK KD 'The war on terrorism', now explain how 18 odd skyhawks 10 of which were based in Australia anyway would help in that situation.
Please don't get me wrong as I am all for NZ forces having more capability but we have to be realistic about our ability to pay for all this stuff. On a limited budget priorties need to be set and I agree with the government that fighters are a low one in NZ's case given thier cost relative to perceived threats and desired military abilities.
Time will tell if savings are returned in better funding of other defence areas but the recent announcement of upgrading and replacing of transport/heavy lift capabilities is a start don't you think.
Kiwi dave From New Zealand, joined Aug 2000, 895 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2582 times:
According to US sources these A4s are the most advance in the world being refered to slow F-16s, I was under the impression that Canada would use them in martime strike roles it would ease US concerns about who get these A4s, this is what I read in the avaition mags in NZ