Random Play: The Key’s under the Matt
66 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
If we are to assume the history of weapons in the electronic age is really the history of the rise of the robot weapon, then manned jet aircraft have a future that doesn't extend beyond the next 30-50 years anyway.
The English Electric (later BAC) Lightning of the 50s was developed as the last manned fighter. I'm not sure how many times I've read that over the years: 'the way robotics / technology etc is developing.....'
-
(come one, a "provide a process to consider whether it is desirable" is about as weak as the English language provides for)
Well, Gareth, pulling policy out of your arse (and making massive spending commitments while you're at it) is very "strong"; it's also about as stupid as you can get without sliding several rungs down the evolutionary ladder.
-
The wisdom in revisiting pre -election promises on blogs is in a sharpening of awareness and a reminder of what should be, if promises are kept. I wonder if the rise and rise of partisan blogs, and those more neutral, will have a significant effect in this age more than ever before. It seems by contrast in years past, we forgot what had been promised. Therefore the persistence of blogs such as the Standard might prove valuable.
-
no aircraft, apart from lumbering old commercial 757s that we can quickly send to an offshore situation
Provided said situation was no more than 900km from an airbase. And we knew exactly where it was and didn't need to search around. The P3 Orion may be old and unglam, but it can fly a long way and stay in the sky for a long time.
It'd be nice to have some proper naval vessels to fire such rockets from
See any of Lewis Page's ouvre on El Reg for why frigates (which I guess you refer to) are a poor idea for most of the jobs a navy is called on to do. They're many times the price of commercial-based ships like Canterbury, need more crew and more maintenance.
I guess the question NZ defence policy is whether the purpose of the NZDF is to intervene when needed if bad stuff happens around here, or to have enough pointy stuff to look good with the Aussies/Yanks/Brits. (Who have the belligerence, paranoia and money to require an impressive collection of such toys).
-
The Blame game
Some people take responsibility and blame themselves; most people blame their parents. Blaming the government is a clear indication the therapy is working.
Who then do the government blame? Hmm.
The previous government of course.
-
Craig, I wasn't commenting on the policy definition from Mapp (I didn't expect a stronger response), I was commenting on the creation of an article from that response and building it into a breathless "we might get our jets back" when the comment was clearly worded in such as way as to promise no such thing...
-
Provided said situation was no more than 900km from an airbase. And we knew exactly where it was and didn't need to search around. The P3 Orion may be old and unglam, but it can fly a long way and stay in the sky for a long time.
And there are six of them to cover the whole zone. And take a map...look at 900km from Ohakea...it covers a bit. Or 900km from Woodbourne. And it's vastly cheaper on an hourly basis than a P3K if cost is an issue. A P3 also has limited, as you say, pointy bits, unless they wanna sink said boat. The P3 is designed for ASW and maritime recon / patrol (hence the P in it's designation), not fast reaction or anything else.
I guess the question NZ defence policy is whether the purpose of the NZDF is to intervene when needed if bad stuff happens around here, or to have enough pointy stuff to look good with the Aussies/Yanks/Brits.
Not sure what that has to do with the jet trainers.
-
Of course, all Mr Mapp said was: a defence white paper due to be completed next year would "provide a process to consider whether it is desirable to retain some level of jet training capability"
Why on earth do we need another white paper on jets? Quigley's is less than a decade old and seemed to pretty comprehensively resolve the matter.
-
Why on earth do we need another white paper on jets? Quigley's is less than a decade old and seemed to pretty comprehensively resolve the matter.
It only really covered the combat wing if you read through it. The Mb339 was never considered as a keep option apart from a reference in option 3, which was never costed.
-
Hmmm, Simon the range of a P-3 is around a prodigious 7-9,000km, the Macchi's are short legged 900km radius aircraft. I have thought about it but I can't imagine any realistic "maritime situation" that could be efficiently be met by a single engined, fine weather, short-ranged training jet. Quite simply, the macchi is a training aircraft with a secondary light attack capability. The Orion is actually a very capable Maritime recon/strike platform if equipped with the appropriate weapons. Arguably, the P-3 is possibly
The idea of the military is to be even the least a uniformed polytechnic for vocational training is plain dumb, and very deleterious to morale. This function can performed far more cost effectively by existing tertiary institutions. The purpose of the armed forces is to protect the sovereignty of New Zealand.
The bottom line is this - if we want more firepower for the air force (or the Army or the Navy) then we will have to pay for it. That is a different argument. Currently, there is zero constituency for anything more than grudging re-equipment of the priority branches of the armed forces (the Army and then the Navy) on the current modest budgets. And given the lack of any conventional enemy and the public's lack of any enthusiasm for major foreign military adventures that is the way it shall stay for the foreseeable future
-
Hi Graeme,
sorry I am going to be the bear headed one here. It's not just you buddy.
What happened to public address?
I am a great fan of your writing, and I purchased your book of postcards. However, of late it has been lots of plugs for elsewhere, and little of your genius for style, mood and feeling that we have been accustomed too.
Now you're cutting Key slack. Perhaps you should hop over to No Right Turn and consider that this government means we are now officially as stupid on science as Bush's America. If no secret agenda means re-litigating climate change waeeeehae...
and while I'm raving wishing I was an accredited curmudgeon...
is there some positive discrimination going on for rugby and sport here? They don't get enough coverage out there in the rest of the media in the whole country?
sorry. badly behaved child back in his box.
-
oh and while I'm creating mischief...DPF did note on his website how damn awesome the Wellington Phoenix played on Friday, please check it out and tell me if Dan Carter or Luke McCallister (both handy ball players) could top that bit of skill from Smeltz.
I did suggest that the Phoenix should have signed Carter to keep him in the country in the national interest, but nobody quite picked up on it...
-
The idea of the military is to be even the least a uniformed polytechnic for vocational training is plain dumb, and very deleterious to morale. This function can performed far more cost effectively by existing tertiary institutions.
effectively wiping out a huge part of the role the military has fulfilled since it's inception. It's a non argument Tom, as the miltary has always provided a training role for the civilian workforce and indeed that is a huge part of the marketing for the forces.
The Aermacchis are suitable not only for the training though of civilian pilots, although that's not really an argument I was using in their favour, and any large modern jet aircraft but fill a fairly glaring gap in the operational capacity of the navy or army, at a pretty low price. It may also go a long way towards resolving the big problem the air force has in retaining trained personnel who train
I agree that the MB339 ain't a suitable aircraft for offshore interdiction but neither is the P-3 no matter how it's spun, and I'm well aware of what t can do. A ship says no to a P-3? There is little you can do apart from call somebody else, the navy, and wait, or sink it.
The P-3Ks, regardless of any makeovers, are amongst the oldest, if not the oldest, flying anywhere in the world and are gonna need replacing with something like this, or similar, at some stage. So do we train for those on Airtrainers? Or pay the Australians to do it for us?
The bottom line is this - if we want more firepower for the air force (or the Army or the Navy) then we will have to pay for it. That is a different argument.
agreed and it's irrelevant to what I'm saying.
-
'in retaining trained personnel who train then leave'
-
err...sorry didn't realise that actually posted the video, not just a link. coat getting my...
-
Heck don't apologise Paul - I'm enjoying seeing embedded vids for the first time in about a month. Happy :)
-
errr...cheers Sacha. It was in response to myself ranting about too much sport then posting a sports vid, which got embedded in Graeme's otherwise mostly sports neutral column.
It's a great game from the 'Nix, but hardly some of the genius things, like the Harry Enfield number that popped up in David Haywood's column.
-
I don't disagree that the armed forces have played a huge role in vocational training. But to try and formalise that role, to try and detract from their primarily MILITARY function in any formal way would be an absolute disaster for combat efficiency.
I still can't see exactly WHAT "glaring operational gap" you see the MBB339's fufilling, unless you envisage them carrying out COIN operations against Te Qaeda in the Ureweras or something. That is about the only opposition they could realisticly operate against. Further, I have to observe that to claim the P-3 Orion, A PURPOSE DESIGNED ASW/Maritime reconaissance and strike platform, is not suitable for offshore attack roles. If equipped with anti-ship missiles it is a fine maritime strike platform. Remember, New zealand is long, long way from anywhere so unless the bad guys have got an aircraft carrier the Orion will rules the sky around NZ.
In terms of replacing the P-3 , there is no doubt our aircraft are old. But equally, I can't see a decent replacement on the horizon. Certainly, we wouldn't want to buy the P-8, for the simple reason that they are skyrocketing in costand a turbofan powered aircraft is highly inefficient in the low level maritime patrol role that the RNZAF would largely want to use it. Having said that, there is bugger all options out there!
-
"...Further, I have to observe that to claim the P-3 Orion, A PURPOSE DESIGNED ASW/Maritime reconaissance and strike platform, is not suitable for offshore attack roles is rubbish..."
-
I don't disagree that the armed forces have played a huge role in vocational training. But to try and formalise that role, to try and detract from their primarily MILITARY function in any formal way would be an absolute disaster for combat efficiency.
I don't think I mentioned that. I'm just pointing out that the military fulfills that roll already and currently trains pilots that run off to Air NZ and foreign airlines, so really I can't see there is an argument there. They are more likely to maintain a few of those trained personnel, and I'd say, save some money, by having the odd jet in the air. we have them already and no-one wants them, and we have the infrastructure and spares, so why not use them.
still can't see exactly WHAT "glaring operational gap" you see the MBB339's fufilling, unless you envisage them carrying out COIN operations against Te Qaeda in the Ureweras or something.
Tom, you seem stuck on the combat role. It's not relevant. But all the armed forces have said that they lack the operational training that the likes of an aircraft like the MB339 could provide.
Remember, New zealand is long, long way from anywhere so unless the bad guys have got an aircraft carrier the Orion will rules the sky around NZ.
Once again though you keep on coming back to combat role. I'm not sure why as I know there is not likely militarily threat. We have to keep fingers crossed that there won't be one I guess because 6 Orions are neither here nor there. But as I said, not really relevant either way.
Further, I have to observe that to claim the P-3 Orion, A PURPOSE DESIGNED ASW/Maritime reconaissance and strike platform, is not suitable for offshore attack roles. If equipped with anti-ship missiles it is a fine maritime strike platform.
Which makes my point Tom..since we are only likely to face incursions into our economic zone, and I've repeatedly said that I'm not advocating more teeth for the airforce, it's not suited.
Certainly, we wouldn't want to buy the P-8, for the simple reason that they are skyrocketing in cost and a turbofan powered aircraft is highly inefficient in the low level maritime patrol role that the RNZAF would largely want to use it. Having said that, there is bugger all options out there!
And on that we absolutely agree, although the cost gap between turbo fans and turbo props is shrinking rather quickly, and they seem to a slowly disappearing breed for all roles. But the P-8 is non starter.
-
Therefore the persistence of blogs such as the Standard might prove valuable.
Ian: I've long advocated that the prayer opening sittings of the House be replaced with daily readings of the Tale of The Little Shepherd Boy Who Cried Wolf. More than a few bloggers -- on all sides of the political spectrum -- would do well to do the same.
Look, I don't expect The Standard to ever be particularly friendly to the new government but there's nothing wrong with being partisan. There's a hell of a lot wrong when partisanship and any sense of reality or proportional response undergoes a particularly messy divorce. Sorry, but Russell and I are on the same page in finding this just silly. It's not subjecting the Government of the day to proper scrutiny - it's trying to beat up a diplomatic incident out of methane vapour.
-
The purpose of the armed forces is to protect the sovereignty of New Zealand.
Actually, the purpose of the NZ armed forces is to take all the psychos who want to play soldiers and dump them in a small holes in the middle of nowhere (Waiouru, Linton, Birmingham). Looking for lost trampers or building schools in disaster-ravaged places is an added bonus. But "protecting sovereignty"? Who the hell from?
Oh, that's right: the penguins. Tikili-li.
-
Waiouru, Linton, Birmingham . . .
Waiouru, Linton, Birmingham - Alabama? Why shoot, those gosh-darn rednecks. Put 'em all in the army.
Burnham. Glad you're a pacifist, Mr. Savant. If you were in the military you'd likely be scouting the Sahara for enemy penguins.
-
small holes in the middle of nowhere (Waiouru, Linton, Birmingham)
It's a simple mistake anyone could make, really:
I/S, Birmingham's a big hole. -
And talking about pissy columns, how about this morning's effort from John Armstrong?
It's 4.39pm and John Key is nine minutes late for his second most important Monday engagement - the Prime Minister's weekly press conference which follows the day's Cabinet meeting.
As far as the 30 or so Press Gallery journalists waiting in the Beehive Theatrette are concerned, Key isn't fashionably late. With their deadlines fast approaching, he's just late.
"At least there is continuity from one Prime Minister to the next," observes one in sarcastic reference to Key's predecessor's similar punctuality.
Key arrives a minute later. He apologises, says he was held up at a meeting of the Executive Council. (Well, you cannot rush the Governor-General, can you, simply to keep the media happy?) But Key promises to do better next Monday.
Could you do the same, John? He pissed away around 18% of that column whining, like some teenage boy who is traumatised to find the whole bloody universe does not revolve around him. I know what it's like being hard up on a deadline, but bitch please...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.