A thread to discuss how Jacinda will make NZ Choice again

Thread Rating: 9 votes, 3.22 average.
(9 votes)
Results 2,526 to 2,550 of 2696

  1. Post
    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    Our defense money is probably best spent on the navy considering the size of our exclusive economic area and the number of Chinese fishing boats we have to chase out of it.



    Wtf, how old are you? No wonder you post like such a noob.
    As much as I'd like to get a squadron of fast jets. It only takes a commie like Helen Clark for them to be scrapped again. The p-8 should at least have a cannon to sink the Chinese fishing boats.

    Old enough to have a sense of self awareness and a limited understanding of the world.

    Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

  2. Post
    Not siding with China is on the wrong side of history smdh

  3. Post
    Mr sika wrote:
    As much as I'd like to get a squadron of fast jets. It only takes a commie like Helen Clark for them to be scrapped again. The p-8 should at least have a cannon to sink the Chinese fishing boats.

    Old enough to have a sense of self awareness and a limited understanding of the world.

    Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk
    A squadron of fast jets eh?

    That's on my wish list too.

    Not sure what I'd do with them though, maybe employ a few more wing commanders and other brass, train yet more pilots for Air NZ on the tax payer dollar, and relive the good old days when I dreamed of shooting down those pesky Migs over the Yellow River.

  4. Post
    Lol @ "a squadron of fast jets". What the **** are we supposed to do with those?

    Killing Chinese fishermen isn't a current defense priority, yelling at their captains and escorting them out is sufficient and that's done by navy patrol boats.

    1 Nasty Kiwi wrote:
    There is an argument for a maritime focus. the RNZAF and navy compliment eachother. strictly looking at EEZ patrols as you referred to, aircraft are able to cover a much greater area, due to their speed, and sensor coverage (in part due to not being stuck on sea level). Aircraft however a much more limited time on station, and cant of course, board a vessel.

    Ships have much greater endurance, can board vessels, but are slower, and cant cover anywhere near the area of an aircraft in the same time frame. Having the two work together is a force multipler effect. The result is much better than the effectiveness of an aircraft plus the effectiveness of a navy vessel.

    NZDF is changing focus to a greater maritime focus. Deployed company aboard the Canterbury, FINALLY new maritime aircraft, new fleet replenishment tanker arriving etc.

    overall defence is circa 0.8% gdp, much less than our allies. We get pretty good results from what we have, and I really dont see reason to complain about the upcoming capital projects.
    Good points. Wouldn't it make sense for spotter planes to be owned and controlled by the navy though?

    1% of gdp seems reasonable and there's no pressing need to spend more than that unless war breaks out with Samoa or something.

    When you say deployed company aboard Canterbury, does that mean ~100 fully loaded soldiers playing table tennis on the ship whenever it goes anywhere?

  5. Post
    Our only real defence is world stability.

    We should probably start building tanks.

  6. Post
    CODChimera wrote:
    Our only real defence is world stability.

    We should probably start building tanks.
    The best defense at the moment is pleasuring Donald Trump's ego.

  7. Post
    Mr sika wrote:
    As much as I'd like to get a squadron of fast jets. It only takes a commie like Helen Clark for them to be scrapped again. The p-8 should at least have a cannon to sink the Chinese fishing boats.

    Old enough to have a sense of self awareness and a limited understanding of the world.

    Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk
    When was the last time the RNZAF fired in anger? WW2 I think?

    Our Skyhawks were useless. They would have been an exercise in boredom for any enemy.

    If anyone wants NZ they will need to go via Aussie first, and if they get through the Aussies there is no way we can stop them. Dual purpose military gear is good, like the P-8s being used for fisheries and SAR. Single use fast jets is just stupid.

  8. Post
    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    Lol @ "a squadron of fast jets". What the **** are we supposed to do with those?

    Killing Chinese fishermen isn't a current defense priority, yelling at their captains and escorting them out is sufficient and that's done by navy patrol boats.


    Good points. Wouldn't it make sense for spotter planes to be owned and controlled by the navy though?

    1% of gdp seems reasonable and there's no pressing need to spend more than that unless war breaks out with Samoa or something.

    When you say deployed company aboard Canterbury, does that mean ~100 fully loaded soldiers playing table tennis on the ship whenever it goes anywhere?
    Not quite. Yes approx 100 people with vehicles food comms gear vehicles etc. It's not about jumping on the ship and stooging about on board whenever it leaves port, and isn't restricted to an infantry company. E.g. engineers may be needed for a humanitarian task.

    It's about ensuring interoperability and ability to conduct a landing of a force of that size and then sustaining them. Canterbury has hangar facilities as well (this is all freely available on the internet) so you have the Bility to field an aviation element as well. It's more than just rock up to the nearest port and offload.

    You need to be capable of landing this force when their are no port facilities. Say, destroyed in an earthquake.

    The trouble with a spotter plane being run by the navy - it's actually quite complex. For example you are introducing another capability but it can only achieve a narrow output. Whereas p8 can do a lot more. Is this efficient use of resources?

    You also double up on things, needing greater logistics maintenance and supply needs to support this capability when the rnzaf already has it. Large militaries can do it, but it would be very difficult with our numbers and budget.

    Navy does operate the sea sprite helicopters from their vessels. Support for these is joint. They are based at an air force base, part of an air force squadron and have navy and air force personnel supporting and operating them.

    Sprites also offer quite a wide capability set, not just slinging missiles at enemy ships.

    EDIT king air aircraft are being fitted to augment surveillance role. A quick Google will give you more info
    Last edited by 1 Nasty Kiwi; 12th July 2018 at 11:52 am.

  9. Post
    Whatever happened to the idea of Singapore basing a squadron of F15s here?

  10. Post
    Zarkov wrote:
    A squadron of fast jets eh?

    That's on my wish list too.

    Not sure what I'd do with them though, maybe employ a few more wing commanders and other brass, train yet more pilots for Air NZ on the tax payer dollar, and relive the good old days when I dreamed of shooting down those pesky Migs over the Yellow River.
    I just want to fly them fast and blow stuff up. I know we don't need them. We'd be much better off with something suited to anti ship sort of thing.

    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    Lol @ "a squadron of fast jets". What the **** are we supposed to do with those?

    Killing Chinese fishermen isn't a current defense priority, yelling at their captains and escorting them out is sufficient and that's done by navy patrol boats.


    Good points. Wouldn't it make sense for spotter planes to be owned and controlled by the navy though?

    1% of gdp seems reasonable and there's no pressing need to spend more than that unless war breaks out with Samoa or something.

    When you say deployed company aboard Canterbury, does that mean ~100 fully loaded soldiers playing table tennis on the ship whenever it goes anywhere?
    Fly them.

    It's certainly a current economic priority.

    Vulcan wrote:
    When was the last time the RNZAF fired in anger? WW2 I think?

    Our Skyhawks were useless. They would have been an exercise in boredom for any enemy.

    If anyone wants NZ they will need to go via Aussie first, and if they get through the Aussies there is no way we can stop them. Dual purpose military gear is good, like the P-8s being used for fisheries and SAR. Single use fast jets is just stupid.
    If they were useless then we should have bought the f 16's.

    Galent wrote:
    Whatever happened to the idea of Singapore basing a squadron of F15s here?
    Not sure.

    Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

  11. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    When was the last time the RNZAF fired in anger? WW2 I think?

    Our Skyhawks were useless. They would have been an exercise in boredom for any enemy.

    If anyone wants NZ they will need to go via Aussie first, and if they get through the Aussies there is no way we can stop them. Dual purpose military gear is good, like the P-8s being used for fisheries and SAR. Single use fast jets is just stupid.
    One of the Skyhawks did actually fire its cannon in anger. Once. Across the bows of a Taiwanese fishing boat, iirc.

  12. Post
    CODChimera wrote:
    Our only real defence is world stability.

    We should probably start building tanks.
    Already have...



    - - - Updated - - -

    GaR wrote:
    One of the Skyhawks did actually fire its cannon in anger. Once. Across the bows of a Taiwanese fishing boat, iirc.
    Does a warning shot really count though?

  13. Post
    Mr sika wrote:
    If they were useless then we should have bought the f 16's.
    Why? Since WW2 no pointy end of the RNZAF has participated in a war, only the transport guys. We would've ended up with some second hand out of date F-16s that would've needed significant upgrades to bring them up to current spec (they were 14 year old builds at the time of the deal).

  14. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Does a warning shot really count though?
    I'd have called that a near perfect use for them.

  15. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Why? Since WW2 no pointy end of the RNZAF has participated in a war, only the transport guys. We would've ended up with some second hand out of date F-16s that would've needed significant upgrades to bring them up to current spec (they were 14 year old builds at the time of the deal).
    I thought project kahu was meant to modernize the sky hawks.

    If they're 14 years old then I'd question the wisdom of my prior statement. They'd have far too many hours on the frames.

    What would have been a better idea if we were to have bought done jets? Saab or euro fighter?


    Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

  16. Post
    Galent wrote:
    Whatever happened to the idea of Singapore basing a squadron of F15s here?
    I'd support that anyday

    Heck, I'd let the UK, Australia and USA put their jets, a aircraft carrier fleet and military base here

    Anything to deter Chinese aggression

  17. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    Only some do. We don't need to tar all farmers because of a few bad ones.
    Lol when Bulls have have horns they gouge each other. Even when they don't they spend a lot of the day fighting. These animals weigh over a ton and can easily kill you. 99% of the time I farmer cannot even hurt the animal.

  18. Post
    SirGrim wrote:
    Anything to deter Chinese aggression
    What chinese aggression?

  19. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    What chinese aggression?
    err, like building new islands for military bases in the pacific

    sweetening up our pacific neighbors, can't be long now until all the free donation money turns into a request for a military base

  20. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Already have...



    - - - Updated - - -



    Does a warning shot really count though?
    Yeah, I think so. You wouldn't say it engaged in combat though, I suppose.

  21. Post
    bradc wrote:
    I'd have called that a near perfect use for them.
    Really? In 70 odd years the only time they shoot is probably something our Navy could have done?

    I'm not an RNZAF hater, when I was young I wanted to fly - did ATC - applied, got through the entrance exams, then burned coz of my eyes. I had friends from ATC that went through to fly skyhawks before they buggered off to the UK.

    I just don't see fast jets being of benefit to us. If we were attacked we have 2 functioning air force bases, easy targets. A couple of runway bombs would cripple out air force easily. And anyone that attacks us is likely to roll Aussie first - if they can overwhelm Aussie then NZ is screwed.

    As for the Chinese carrier threat.. it's unlikely to be a problem. Chinese carriers are not as great as everyone makes out, and they have poor ASW capabilities, essentially needing land support. So they are unlikely to operate much further than the South China Sea in a hot war.

  22. Post
    SirGrim wrote:
    err, like building new islands for military bases in the pacific
    You mean the South China Sea?

  23. Post
    SirGrim wrote:
    I'd support that anyday

    Heck, I'd let the UK, Australia and USA put their jets, a aircraft carrier fleet and military base here

    Anything to deter Chinese aggression
    How quickly can we build a bike do you know?

    SirGrim wrote:
    err, like building new islands for military bases in the pacific

    sweetening up our pacific neighbors, can't be long now until all the free donation money turns into a request for a military base
    Yeah the ring of pearls isn't just to encircle India. Its for hegemony over the Pacific.

    Vulcan wrote:
    You mean the South China Sea?
    Jog on. They're not China's.

    Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

  24. Post
    Our best defense is our relative geographic isolation and lack of strategic importance.

    If we are attacked we are better off fighting a guerrilla action. Our elite SAS troops are comparatively better trained than most and our population is too spread out to properly suppress without a large commitment of force.

    The future is in drones anyway -soon the RNZAF will be made up of gamers sitting behind a computer screen...

  25. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Really? In 70 odd years the only time they shoot is probably something our Navy could have done?
    The best weapons are never used. If your argument is "we should only have weapons we're using frequently", something is seriously wrong.