Posts by Simon Grigg
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I am only slightly disturbed by the fact that I knew that...
I'm even more disturbed by the fact I can remember that.
-
According to Wikipedia, the RAF only trains pilots on the Hawk (the equivalent of a Macchi) if they are going on to fly fast jets (Tornado/Eurofighter/Harrier). Multi-engine pilots train on King Airs, just as in the RNZAF.
The Hawk is an advanced jet trainer whereas the Mb339 is more of a basic jet trainer., better compared to the T-6II which it competed with in the US. The TA-4K Skyhawk was closer to the Hawk.
-
Maybe relevant - there were big newspaper headlines down here in the Manawatu, just before election day, that Key had said the airforce base in Auckland would be kept on, as would its personnel of course. Simon Power, local mp, wouldn't comment - people down here have been expecting an influx of personnel to Ohakea over the next few years - an economic boost to the area.
I think the military has balked at the estimated $1 billion shut down cost. According the the wikipedia page on the base, RNZAF Auckland will stay open now.
I spent a big slab of my youth there so at least from that angle I'm sentimentally pleased that the tree I built my tree hut in will still be there. It's a mighty big, WW2 era, base to fill though but it makes far more sense to have the navy helicopters in Auckland, and the c-130s.
-
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.
-
'in retaining trained personnel who train then leave'
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.....'
-
Since there is no remotely realistic threat to our home islands either, the A-4 attack jets we had had no conceivable combat application. They consumed a disproportionate chuck of the operational budget in fuel, parts and wages to keep flying. The cost of buying fast jets that were sufficiently modern and capable of combat operations was deemed to expensive for the limited range of uses they would have.
Tom where did I advocate keeping the A-4s? I didn't which really nullifies the rest of your post (BTW which I completely agree with that's irrelevant). As to MB339s, if they are removed from the A-4 / Combat wing cost structure and used at a low level they are relatively in-expensive.
The defence forces provide a vast range of training for a whole raft of other industries, including international airlines without the MB339s and at substantially greater cost to the tax payer than the trainers cost on a year in year out basis. Shall we kill that too?
If we want to have an efficient airforce, or an airforce at all, we need to at least offer the basic competency in modern equipment and the Mb339s are the minimum we have to do that. They also offer a cost effective quick response to maritime situations that NZ no longer has. We have no aircraft, apart from lumbering old commercial 757s that we can quickly send to an offshore situation (6 x 40 year old P3Ks, no matter how rebuild can't begin to cover it) at vastly higher cost than a small lightly armed jet.
They also provide a cheap level of attack training and target practice training for the navy and Army who do get into shooting situations. Right now they have none of that.