Navy's frigates break down at sea. [Archive]

Swoop

27th April 2007, 10:58

Interesting. The Navy would be the best to diagnose the problem's with the vessel. The engine cutting out unexpectedly though... I can help them with that one!!!

Honda electrical systems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The navy's two warships, the Anzac frigates Te Kaha and Te Mana, both broke down at sea earlier this year, it has been revealed.

Both ships had engine problems and it is also believed the navy's supply ship, the tanker HMNZS Endeavour, had an engine breakdown which left it drifting briefly in the Hauraki Gulf last month.

Te Mana had problems with its diesel engines during exercises as it crossed the Tasman to Sydney with its sister ship.

The navy said Te Mana could not use its diesel engines, designed to allow the ship to cruise at a lower economical speed, and had to run its gas turbine.

The gas turbine is a marine version of the engines fitted to a Boeing 747 jumbo jet and allows short, high-speed sprints at more than 27 knots.

The following month Te Kaha had an engine failure as it was about to undertake a replenishment at sea with Endeavour in the Hauraki Gulf.

The engine failure put "an abrupt halt to proceedings" and the frigate broke off the replenishment and stayed at sea an extra night.

The navy could not say what caused the problems.

SARGE

27th April 2007, 11:05

The navy could not say what caused the problems.

i know the problem ...

according to the recruiting ad's i have seen on TV .. the navy is about playing Video Games, touch Rugby and partying in Thailand ..

maybe they need to recruit a few engineers

or maybe stop the huge dole payments and start maintaining the infrastructure...

ManDownUnder

27th April 2007, 11:17

LOLOL... I can see it now. WWIII, somewhere in the mid Pacific.

"Vot did zat lassst massage zay? Give us anuzzer day ve need to restart ze boat?"

"Just bung ze torpeedo up zer arss like ze last time!"

SARGE

27th April 2007, 11:21

ManDownUnder

27th April 2007, 11:24

10 yadda yadda

Cool.... 75,000 Amp rated jumper leads!

NighthawkNZ

27th April 2007, 11:24

Being Ex-Navy (and serving on the older Leander Class Frigates) they break down... The stresses involved on the engines and the ship itself are... well high... even after they just come out of a maintenance routine or even a refit. Shit happens.

Though it doesn't help that our Government made cut backs on these vessels

Swoop

27th April 2007, 11:32

(and serving on the older Leander Class Frigates)
Spent a shit-load of time working on them myself. Oh what fun...:bash: :brick: :brick:

Though it doesn't help that our Government made cut backs on these vessels
How unusual... Just like the Waikato. Was able to detect a missile, could track it coming at the ship, could even film the missile approaching...
Just couldn't shoot it down.:bye:

SARGE

27th April 2007, 11:34

Finn

27th April 2007, 11:36

What exactly do we need friggen frigates for anyway when the invasion is actually happening at our airports. Maybe they should dry stack them there.

SARGE

27th April 2007, 11:46

What exactly do we need friggen frigates for anyway when the invasion is actually happening at our airports. Maybe they should dry stack them there.

Uncle Helen has gutted the RNZ Air Force .. why not the Navy?

ManDownUnder

27th April 2007, 11:52

how old is the present fleet by the way ?.. are they second hand stuff ? ( being serious)

No. The ANZAC Frigates have been built to spec over the last 10 years or so? I can't recall how many were ordered etc but they are new. And thoroughly tested...

Tui anyone?

On the bright side SARGE - picking up on a comment earlier... the video games on board would keep the crew happy and we'd WASTE anyone at World of Warcraft (or whatever the fuck) if it came to that.

Tis a sad state of affairs but then to put it in context we're a country of 4 million people. It's tough to support a full Army, Air Force and Navy on a population the Size of Sydney, or downtown Houston.

Finn

27th April 2007, 11:58

Tis a sad state of affairs but then to put it in context we're a country of 4 million people. It's tough to support a full Army, Air Force and Navy on a population the Size of Sydney, or downtown Houston.

We must stop using this an an excuse. Sweden only has 8 million people and by comparison could probably level Australia in a cuppla days.

What you meant to say is that we are an isolated island nation of cow and sheep growers who play rugby and throw money at stupid ideas, never amounting to anything of significance on the world stage, hence a poor nation not capable of a sustainable defense force.

SARGE

27th April 2007, 11:59

No. The ANZAC Frigates have been built to spec over the last 10 years or so? I can't recall how many were ordered etc but they are new. And thoroughly tested...

Tui anyone?

On the bright side SARGE - picking up on a comment earlier... the video games on board would keep the crew happy and we'd WASTE anyone at World of Warcraft (or whatever the fuck) if it came to that.

Tis a sad state of affairs but then to put it in context we're a country of 4 million people. It's tough to support a full Army, Air Force and Navy on a population the Size of Sydney, or downtown Houston.

yea .. and when the Tamul Tigers roll down.. or Al Qeada/ Hezbolla rises up from Stoddard road.. we can call the NZ Police right ?

might be time to rethink NZ's relationship with the US Navy and have a few CBG's stationed not far away

Finn

27th April 2007, 12:01

yea .. and when the Tamul Tigers roll down.. or Al Qeada/ Hezbolla rises up from Stoddard road.. we can call the NZ Police right ?

Yes, but only if they are speeding.

SARGE

27th April 2007, 12:04

Helen needs ....

THE SHOCKER!!!

Swoop

27th April 2007, 12:11

Uncle Helen has gutted the RNZ Air Force .. why not the Navy?

Fisheries protection.
The P-3's play the same game, just that the fisho's monitor the P-3 frequencies and know when they are taking off...

Ship info.
http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/te-kaha/default.htm

ManDownUnder

27th April 2007, 12:12

We must stop using this an an excuse. Sweden only has 8 million people and by comparison could probably level Australia in a cuppla days.

What you meant to say is that we are an isolated island nation of cow and sheep growers who play rugby and throw money at stupid ideas, never amounting to anything of significance on the world stage, hence a poor nation not capable of a sustainable defense force.

Close but no. I think we're still below critical mass (in term of tax base) to effectively do everything, so we need to pick on one or two and do them well (or converslay, pick on most, but not all). That's what is happening but stil... not so well.

Naval breakdowns, all manner of shitty problems with the forces etc. Equipment and training could and should be better. I don't pretend we can be all things with only 4 million. Double the population and things change exponentially to a point where (assuming your comment on Sweden is accurate) we might be able to do all things as needed.

What cover do the Swedes get from the rest of the EU and/or NATO though (other than protection fro ridicule of being a "Swede")? Do Sweden actually provide all the requeisite aspects of defence or work together with other specialist nations as part of a defence "whole"?

NighthawkNZ

27th April 2007, 12:17

how old is the present fleet by the way ?.. are they second hand stuff ? ( being serious)

The two ANZAC Frigates are new coming up ten years I believe...

There is new vessels being built (The Protector Fleet)
http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/default.htm

The Fleet
http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/default.htm

Delerium

27th April 2007, 12:19

NighthawkNZ

27th April 2007, 12:20

Spent a shit-load of time working on them myself. Oh what fun...:bash: :brick: :brick:

How unusual... Just like the Waikato. Was able to detect a missile, could track it coming at the ship, could even film the missile approaching...
Just couldn't shoot it down.:bye:

Only if the SeaCat Aimer was good enough... seacat a short rang Surface to Air self defence missle... (out dated when we had them 1950 technology)

Delerium

27th April 2007, 12:21

Swoop

27th April 2007, 12:23

Only if the SeaCat Aimer was good enough... seacat a short rang Surface to Air self defence missle... (out dated when we had them 1950 technology)
This was post refit, when the Phoenix system was fitted and the Seacat removed! The crewmen had a good laugh about the state of affairs.

I would dispute that.
It's the Navy website, I think they have the info right.:scratch:

Smorg

27th April 2007, 12:28

ANZAC frigates were 1997 1998 if I remember correctly, served on them and the Canterbury (leander class) They break down but what doesnt? Its hardly a revelation

Delerium

27th April 2007, 12:29

This was post refit, when the Phoenix system was fitted and the Seacat removed! The crewmen had a good laugh about the state of affairs.

It's the Navy website, I think they have the info right.:scratch:

I suspect that the world of electrickery is a bit more complex. all that 'neutron stuff'.

NighthawkNZ

27th April 2007, 12:30

What exactly do we need friggen frigates for anyway when the invasion is actually happening at our airports. Maybe they should dry stack them there.

NZ has a very large coast line (including some of the Islands under our unbrella) Under our Alliance Agreements we have to meet certain requirements including Border Proction, Fishiery Protroll, Search and Rescue, and many other things in the civial role...

in time of war, our fleet merges with the Aussie fleet to meet any threat. Which will happen with our other armed forces as such

NighthawkNZ

27th April 2007, 12:31

This was post refit, when the Phoenix system was fitted and the Seacat removed! The crewmen had a good laugh about the state of affairs.

It's the Navy website, I think they have the info right.:scratch:

I left the Navy in 91 and the Waikato (and all othe) then still only had SeaCat

Toaster

27th April 2007, 12:41

Tis a sad state of affairs but then to put it in context we're a country of 4 million people. It's tough to support a full Army, Air Force and Navy on a population the Size of Sydney, or downtown Houston.

We spend quite a bit less of tax dollars "per capita" than Aussie. In other words, for each taxpayer, the aussies spend more on defence than NZ does - and by quite a margin. We just blow it all on sickness beneficiaries, dole bludgers, funding roading contractors new luxury yachts, and pay increases for MP's so they can spend our money on everything but the hard working middle class - who actually pay tax.

Swoop

27th April 2007, 13:03

I left the Navy in 91 and the Waikato (and all othe) then still only had SeaCat
??. I believed Waikato had been relegated to training ship at that stage and had been "de-fanged" so to speak.
She certainly didn't get Phalanx.

Finn

27th April 2007, 13:03

What cover do the Swedes get from the rest of the EU and/or NATO though (other than protection fro ridicule of being a "Swede")? Do Sweden actually provide all the requeisite aspects of defence or work together with other specialist nations as part of a defence "whole"?

It's pretty bloody good by itself although it probably might have something to do with their neighbour. While the threat over the years has changed, they are adapting to it.

http://www.mil.se/article.php?lang=E&id=15694

Quite impressive for a "Neutral, Socialist country"

Ixion

27th April 2007, 13:16

What exactly do we need friggen frigates for anyway when the invasion is actually happening at our airports. Maybe they should dry stack them there.

A common theme , but IMH(and lay)O, incorrect. For NZ, the most effective defence is still a naval one.

There is no nation that we would be at all likely to have to worry about, except the USA, that would have the capability to mount an aerial invasion. It's by no means as easy as people imagine.

Certainly Indonesia or someone could send some planes to shoot stuff up (though I dunno if Indonesia has anything with the capability to get hear and back without refuelling), and kill a few people. Hell of a jump from that to a maintained invasion.

That was one call that Dear Leader got right. All our defence money (such as it is) should go into the Navy, and militia type training along the lines of Switzland.

Finn

27th April 2007, 13:18

That was one call that Dear Leader got right. All our defence money (such as it is) should go into the Navy, and militia type training along the lines of Switzland.

I agree, so why aren't they?

SARGE

27th April 2007, 13:36

That was one call that Dear Leader got right. All our defence money (such as it is) should go into the Navy, and militia type training along the lines of Switzland.

agree .. Coastal Defense should be at the forefront. Turn the old gun batteries in Devonport etc into Phalanx/ Harpoon / Exocet/ Yakhont anti ship missile batteries for an " OTH", Fire and Forget defense. Use the Coast Guard in smaller boats for Fisheries Protection , S&R and Smuggling Interdiction. one Fast Response Cutter and a 7 123 foot patrol boats would cost as much as one Frigate ...toss a few Exocet systems on the RNZ fleet ad you're sorted

as far as a NZ militia..where do i sign?

RC1

27th April 2007, 13:50

:gob: Navy ?? do we still have one ?? i thought they just sent out the locals in there waka :shutup:

jrandom

27th April 2007, 15:29

There is no nation that we would be at all likely to have to worry about, except the USA, that would have the capability to mount an aerial invasion. It's by no means as easy as people imagine.

I think you're missing the true value of an offensive air capability in terms of homeland defence.

Granted, any potential invader's airpower can be used to drop bombs or land paratroops. Bombs never won a war on their own, and substantial airborne invasions are very unlikely from any of NZ's potential enemies, so shooting down enemy planes in and of itself is really the least of anyone's concerns in that respect.

However, the success or failure of any seaborne invasion hinges on air supremacy.

The Battle of Britain was fought as a prelude to Operation Sea Lion (Hitler's plan for seaborne invasion of the south coast of England). German air supremacy over the Channel would have made the British Navy's job in resisting such an invasion very, very difficult. Fortunately, British victory in the tussle for air supremacy put the nail in that particular German coffin.

Also, the major battles of the WW2 Pacific theatre, and the subsequent shift to aircraft carriers as the new capital ships of any large nation's fleet, made it clear that airpower, not ships' guns, was key to blue-water supremacy.

The ability to control the airspace around and beyond our shores and to strike offensively at blue-water targets from the air is a pre-requisite to any real defence against invasion from the sea. In this 21st century, any Navy that cannot operate under an airpower umbrella is doomed.

Viewed in that light, our Navy really is more of a Coast Guard. Our lack of airpower gives us very limited capability to respond to offensive actions by other nation-states.

MikeyG

27th April 2007, 16:05

Sweden only has 8 million people

Sweden also has compulsary military service. Having trained people to call up when needed might be a help.

I'm all for it here. Gets you in shape so would help with the obesity problem, teaches discipline, etc. and just wanting to drive a tank might have something to do with it.

Swoop

27th April 2007, 16:06

Viewed in that light, our Navy really is more of a Coast Guard.
NZ Marines.
Forget the three branches stuff and have a combined force all wearing the same uniform.
Chances of that happening?

SARGE

27th April 2007, 16:19

NZ Marines.
Forget the three branches stuff and have a combined force all wearing the same uniform.
Chances of that happening?

NZ Marines ???...

boarding party more likely

http://www.navy.mil.nz/join-us/sits-vacant/operations/scs.htm

again ... a role that the NZ Coast Guard should be doing .. more wasted resources

Finn

27th April 2007, 16:23

Sweden also has compulsary military service. Having trained people to call up when needed might be a help.

I'm all for it here. Gets you in shape so would help with the obesity problem, teaches discipline, etc. and just wanting to drive a tank might have something to do with it.

Sweden stopped compulsory military service years ago. The claws of socialism meant that anybody who had goldfish that suffered from separation anxiety would be exempt. Killed it overnight.

Swoop

27th April 2007, 16:26

NZ Marines ???...

boarding party more likely

http://www.navy.mil.nz/join-us/sits-vacant/operations/scs.htm

again ... a role that the NZ Coast Guard should be doing .. more wasted resources
Was thinking more along the lines of disbanding the three unarmed services and replacing them with a combined force.

yod

27th April 2007, 16:32

....made it clear that airpower, not ships' guns, was key to blue-water supremacy.

The ability to control the airspace around and beyond our shores and to strike offensively at blue-water targets from the air is a pre-requisite to any real defence against invasion from the sea.....

ah...but y'see that's where you're wrong

the water around NZ is mostly green...that's why we don't need an airforce....

very clever us kiwis...having green water an' that.....

yod

27th April 2007, 16:34

Sweden also has compulsary military service. Having trained people to call up when needed might be a help.

I'm all for it here. Gets you in shape so would help with the obesity problem, teaches discipline, etc. and just wanting to drive a tank might have something to do with it.

you mean i get to blow shit up???

where do i sign....

MikeyG

27th April 2007, 16:35

Sweden stopped compulsory military service years ago. The claws of socialism meant that anybody who had goldfish that suffered from separation anxiety would be exempt. Killed it overnight.

I still think we need it here though. Would sort out some of the little shits I see round

MikeyG

27th April 2007, 16:38

you mean i get to blow shit up???

No need to be in the armed services for that. All you need is a few common household chemicals :innocent:

yod

27th April 2007, 16:41

No need to be in the armed services for that. All you need is a few common household chemicals :innocent:

yeah and a coke bottle.....

but i'm bored with the little ones....me want BIG bang woohoo!!

jrandom

27th April 2007, 16:42

me want BIG bang woohoo!!

Ever let off an ounce of blackpowder?

SARGE

27th April 2007, 16:45

Ever let off an ounce of blackpowder?

*cough* 3 feet of det-cord
*cough* 1/2 block of C4
*cough*

MikeyG

27th April 2007, 16:46

yeah and a coke bottle.....

but i'm bored with the little ones....me want BIG bang woohoo!!

Swap the coke bottle with a 44 galloon drum

yod

27th April 2007, 16:46

Ever let off an ounce of blackpowder?

no, but i've flown off on an ounce of something else :doobey:

yod

27th April 2007, 16:47

Swap the coke bottle with a 44 galloon drum

milk tanker maybe??

SARGE

27th April 2007, 16:52

we hada game we used to play with the new Marines in the unit..

went something like this ..

"here in the feild .. we have weapons that they do not tell you about in Grunt School... Nuclear Bullets!!!"

"Nuclear Bullets!!!???"

(see Sarge load a Tracer Round into his SAW and aim at a 55 gallon drum 200 yards downrange that has been filled halfway with JP4 Jet Fuel and the lid placed loosely over the drum...)

Finn

27th April 2007, 16:56

jrandom

27th April 2007, 16:56

Nuclear Bullets!!!

I think that's pronounced 'nucular', dude.

SARGE

27th April 2007, 16:58

I think that's pronounced 'nucular', dude.

Says the Kiwi

doc

27th April 2007, 19:26

You need to compare %GDP spend on defence also.
Thats the whole point. We want an effective defence force but won't pay for it. And we don't fuckin need it. If anyone doesn't like my comments I will explain them if you want.

Delerium

27th April 2007, 19:28

Thats the whole point. We want an effective defence force but won't pay for it. And we don't fuckin need it. If anyone doesn't like my comments I will explain them if you want.

I for one disagree with that.

NighthawkNZ

27th April 2007, 19:32

Thats the whole point. We want an effective defence force but won't pay for it. And we don't fuckin need it.

I don't mind paying for a decent defence force... I remember doing many jobs that we were equiped properly to do...

doc

27th April 2007, 19:37

I for one disagree with that.
What do you disagree with ?

Delerium

27th April 2007, 20:01

Reading your post sounds like you dont beleive that NZ needs an effective defence force, and I disagree with that statement. If I have just read that incorrectly then my bad.

Timber020

27th April 2007, 20:02

GDP of NZ about 100 billion

GDP of sweden about 350 billion

Being near main defense suppliers in Europe with the usual discounts and the Russians on the doorstep, I can see how they have such a big defence force.

Although in WW2 they were quite happy to help the germans and british lighten there purses by selling them materials. Another neutral nation that let its neighbours get fucked while it got rich. Nice.

doc

27th April 2007, 20:24

Reading your post sounds like you dont beleive that NZ needs an effective defence force, and I disagree with that statement. If I have just read that incorrectly then my bad.
No we CAN'T afford an effective defence force. We can't protect our coastline, so how can we protect ourselves against a marine invasion. Once they are here we can't afford an effective defence force and we have no effective air power . The answer my friend in ANZUS. That alliance has made some bad calls recently. But you can't pick the right choice all the time. Its about principles and sticking by them during the difficult times.You have to make a stand for what you believe. Friggen hell if ANZAC being Gallipoli was redone in the present day it would never of happened . It's all about boundaries like drawing a line in the sand like the "Supernanny does" without the naughty room.

terbang

27th April 2007, 20:53

Fisheries protection.
The P-3's play the same game, just that the fisho's monitor the P-3 frequencies and know when they are taking off...

Ship info.
http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/te-kaha/default.htm

When I was flying patrols for the Aussies we did a job for the Kiwi customs and fisheries. We arrived in direct from Canberra, high leveling it over NZ dropping down out to sea for low level work off Tauranga, then up towards the Kermadecs. We had no kiwi naval support as they were also broken at that time though we had some Kiwi 'fisho's' on board. Our unannounced arrival caught a lot of foriegn and 'Indigenous' vessels, that were illegally fishing, off guard. It was carnage and the Kiwi Fisho's were shocked and tearing their hair out because there was SFA they could do apart from just wave and take images of them. The P3, though primarily a submarine hunter, is also useful at surface detection for fisheries though the problem here is our own security. You fire a P3 up at Whenuapai and the whole world knows about it (including the bad guys). And when they find them there is no surface vessel available (broken down) to make the arrest.

dman

27th April 2007, 21:49

On the bright side SARGE - picking up on a comment earlier... the video games on board would keep the crew happy and we'd WASTE anyone at World of Warcraft (or whatever the fuck) if it came to that.Nope, Korea would severely humiliate us at StarCraft. Even before StarCraft has finished loading up on our own crap computers...

Ixion

27th April 2007, 22:16

I think you're missing the true value of an offensive air capability in terms of homeland defence.

However, the success or failure of any seaborne invasion hinges on air supremacy.

The Battle of Britain was fought as a prelude to Operation Sea Lion (Hitler's plan for seaborne invasion of the south coast of England). ,,,
The ability to control the airspace around and beyond our shores and to strike offensively at blue-water targets from the air is a pre-requisite to any real defence against invasion from the sea. In this 21st century, any Navy that cannot operate under an airpower umbrella is doomed.

Viewed in that light, our Navy really is more of a Coast Guard. Our lack of airpower gives us very limited capability to respond to offensive actions by other nation-states.

Sort of true. Consensus of agreement is that even if Engand had "lost" the Battle of Britain, SeaLion would still have failed. Though the Royal Navy would have been completely destroyed in the process.

But, naval air control doesn't have to be, and should not be, land based. That was the mistake Mussolini made ("Italy, the unsinkable aircraft carrier") . And with modern missile systems, I'm not convinced that it needs fixed wing aircraft (though I'll defer to any experts here on that)

NighthawkNZ

27th April 2007, 22:30

Sort of true. Consensus of agreement is that even if Engand had "lost" the Battle of Britain, SeaLion would still have failed. Though the Royal Navy would have been completely destroyed in the process.

But, naval air control doesn't have to be, and should not be, land based. That was the mistake Mussolini made ("Italy, the unsinkable aircraft carrier") . And with modern missile systems, I'm not convinced that it needs fixed wing aircraft (though I'll defer to any experts here on that)

Too make any offence and or defence work you need all three working as one

loftyk3

28th April 2007, 08:58

Ignorance is bliss

jrandom

28th April 2007, 09:19

Sort of true. Consensus of agreement is that even if Engand had "lost" the Battle of Britain, SeaLion would still have failed. Though the Royal Navy would have been completely destroyed in the process.

Indeed. I wasn't arguing that Sea Lion would have been a cakewalk even with Luftwaffe supremacy over the Channel. Winning the air battle was still a matter of life and death for Britain, though.

But, naval air control doesn't have to be, and should not be, land based.

NZ will never afford an aircraft carrier and its support flotilla. An air umbrella over our littoral zones will either be land based or nonexistent.

That was the mistake Mussolini made ("Italy, the unsinkable aircraft carrier")...

[giggle] No, I think the mistake Mussolini made was using Italians to fly the aeroplanes...

And with modern missile systems, I'm not convinced that it needs fixed wing aircraft (though I'll defer to any experts here on that)

Perhaps a network of coastal batteries would suffice, but I'm unable to comment with any authority.

Ixion

28th April 2007, 09:40

Perhaps a network of coastal batteries would suffice, but I'm unable to comment with any authority.

Nor am I, nor , I suspect, is anyone, really. But the operative phrase in my post was "fixed wing".

The capabilities of modern missiles are such that all that is required, I think, is to get them launched early enough that interception takes place before the attacking aircraft's own missiles are in range. That doesn't need dedicated fixed wing fighters.

sAsLEX

28th April 2007, 10:39

Equipment and training could and should be better

I am training at the moment, and its world class, what Navy you looking at?

Certainly Indonesia or someone could send some planes to shoot stuff up (though I dunno if Indonesia has anything with the capability to get hear and back without refuelling), and kill a few people.

Why do they need to return....Kamakazeeeeeee

NZ Marines ???...

boarding party more likely

http://www.navy.mil.nz/join-us/sits-vacant/operations/scs.htm

again ... a role that the NZ Coast Guard should be doing .. more wasted resources

The group have some nice boats, maybe we should have them embarked for doing the down and dirty?

And when they find them there is no surface vessel available (broken down) to make the arrest.

The only time a skyhawk fired in anger was against? where?

The capabilities of modern missiles are such that all that is required, I think, is to get them launched early enough that interception takes place before the attacking aircraft's own missiles are in range. That doesn't need dedicated fixed wing fighters.

Prompt Global Strike

The ability to strike anywhere, and I mean anywhere in the world inside an hour from go to blow!

It aint science fiction, and the more advanced plans have the ability to put a UCAV anywhere in the world in the same timeframe so it can loiter and do damage as it finds things to damage.

terbang

28th April 2007, 11:38

The only time a skyhawk fired in anger was against? where?

We don't have skyhawks anymore and we don't do that anymore either. We find them with an aeroplane, gather the appropriate intel to make it stick in court, then we catch them with a boat and yes it has been known for them to fire a warning shot or two.

Does anyone really think that we had or will ever be likely to stave off anything greater than an attack from the kingdom of Tonga..! You gotta be joking. Our defence force is better off assisting those that could in the future help us (like our SAS) and our own border (economic) protection. Australia, though in close liason with the military, now uses a law enforcement agency (customs) for economic border protection, above a military one. They have their own boats and planes.

sAsLEX

28th April 2007, 20:54

We don't have skyhawks anymore and we don't do that anymore either. We find them with an aeroplane, gather the appropriate intel to make it stick in court, then we catch them with a boat and yes it has been known for them to fire a warning shot or two.

Does anyone really think that we had or will ever be likely to stave off anything greater than an attack from the kingdom of Tonga..! You gotta be joking. Our defence force is better off assisting those that could in the future help us (like our SAS) and our own border (economic) protection. Australia, though in close liason with the military, now uses a law enforcement agency (customs) for economic border protection, above a military one. They have their own boats and planes.

Was in fisheries protection off the coast of New Plymouth.

Edbear

28th April 2007, 21:32

All these opinions are fine and dandy, but I opine that it's all a bit academic. NZ isn't really needed by anyone else -strategically or otherwise, with perhaps the exception of the Japanese who want to buy it and turn it into a golf course...

We have nothing of value apart from nice scenery and some fresh water, still, that anyone might want. The risk of invasion diminished post WW2 with the advancement in delivery and monitoring systems. The modern submarines of the major players can launch ICBM's against anywhere with no warning, planes are unneccesary, but fun for the pilots.

Wars are begun by superpowers who have no fear of reprisal - against defenceless nations - in their own interests and for specific reasons, ie: Iraq, and highly unlikely in our neck of the woods.

Countries with real military power, and Japan is one now as it has been rebuilding its military quietly, are conscious of the potential and risks in warfare and are more interested in seeing how the world powers can cooperate to avoid military conflict against each other. Note the efforts that went into resolving the North Korea issue peacefully. Note that the China/Taiwan issue is very quiet lately.

A lot goes on behind closed doors. NZ is small potatoes. Could be a good refuelling point for fishing patrols on the Southern Ocean, though...

Swoop

29th April 2007, 08:27

But, naval air control doesn't have to be, and should not be, land based. That was the mistake Mussolini made ("Italy, the unsinkable aircraft carrier")
Almost the mistake the Brit's made in the late '70's. Do away with aircraft carriers "because the Air Force says it can defend the fleet at sea from any piece of land".
To prove it, they drew up a map of the world with the ranges of the RAF aircraft overlayed over the top. It was fine except for the fact that there was a dirty big hole in the middle of the Indian Ocean. SOLUTION: They simply moved the Australian sub-continent 800 nautical miles to the left.

Luckily the Invincible carriers ("through deck cruisers") arrived in the nick of time for a little dustup in the South Atlantic...

The RAF contribution to that war? One single bomb dropped successfully on Port Stanley runway. All the rest missed. One whole Vulcan bombload failed to detonate... because some dick forgot to arm them (not that it really mattered since they all missed the target anyway).

Ixion

29th April 2007, 11:29

True, in the case of Britain which still has far flung Imperial obligations. But we were talking about NZ (and, tacitly, assuming that the Cook Islands can be sacrificed). In that same little dust up, the Fleet suffered by no means trivial casualties, all inflicted by land based aircraft. The Argentinian aircraft carriers played no part at all.

If you wish to take the battle to a distant opponent, then carriers are needed. But if your concern is to defend the bit of dirt you are sitting on, then that is a different matter. And I did specify "fixed wing" for a reason.

Not to mention that a "Guided Missile Cruiser" can , in reality, be little more than a cheap box with a bunch of missile batteries and some clever electronics. A clever country could make them from old freighters and some #8 wire and corrogated iron.

terbang

29th April 2007, 12:04

All these opinions are fine and dandy, but I opine that it's all a bit academic. NZ isn't really needed by anyone else -strategically or otherwise, with perhaps the exception of the Japanese who want to buy it and turn it into a golf course...
.

Thats the reason or military is what it is now. I had mate who flew A4's and whilst he had a cool job, he admitted that they could only slow an earnest attack by about 10 mins and that was it.
Someone mentioned Indonesia? From what I could see they have a huge and modern military. I was based in Halim Perdanakasuma which is a joint civil/military airfield and saw some fairly modern type stuff (F16) in large numbers operating there. I often chuckled at comments made by some aussies in the wake of the Bali bombing that their airforce should be bombing Jakarta in retaliation. Naïve to the sheer volime of people in Indonesia, they missed the fact that if every citizen in Indonesia armed themselves with a shot gun or even a pitch fork and swam across the arafura sea, then walked across the desert with a 50% loss to the elements, they would still be outnumber the aussies by nearly 10 to one.
And reality is that the Indons have a little more than pitchforks and shotguns and also don't really have any interest in Australia...!
So back to us Kiwi's, can we hold off Indonesia (if they bothered) on our own? I think not but we could wisely spend our defence budget in support of those that can and also look after our commercial interests. The latter requires a border surveillance and enforcement capability that our current military is not well delivering over our 200 mile economic zone.

SARGE

29th April 2007, 12:25

A
Wars are begun by superpowers who have no fear of reprisal - against defenceless nations - in their own interests and for specific reasons, ie: Iraq, and highly unlikely in our neck of the woods.

Iraq??.. Defenseless??... i doubt it .. Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world prior to Desert Storm and they gave Iran a good run in their little 'misunderstanding'

also not afraid of gassing dissidents in their own country ( by dissidents.. i mean women and children)

dont think NZ is safe..the Japanese were keen to get a foothold here in WW2 and if it wasn't for US Admiral Nimitz im pretty sure the map would look a bit different today.. NZ IS being invaded .. not through military means .. through immigration .. Mt. Roskill has a HUGE Arab community.. you cant tell me for a blue second that NONE of the Islamic immigrants has connections or at least loyalty to the extremists ..lets not forget about Asian gangs ..(which the NZ police are ill-equipped to deal with)

i arrived here Sept 20 2001 .. on that day ( look it up) there was a boat full of Afghan Refuges arrived..apparently they had been on the water for a few months at that time ..for some reason , they HAD to get out of Afghanistan right away .. think maybe they knew something was coming .. how could they have known??.. i doubt the Taliban took out a full page advert in the Afghan Daily news to say " we are attacking the US , prepare to leave.."

NZ is a target BECAUSE it is so far out off the beaten path .. The conflict in the Middle East has Coalition Troops everywhere..communications are monitored and its hard to pull anything together without being busted ..

example: the cops are all over SH16.. lets look at a map .. whats another ' out of the way' road with nice twisties and low plod numbers ...???

never underestimate your strategic value on the world stage my friend ..

Ixion

29th April 2007, 12:32

..
NZ is a target BECAUSE it is so far out off the beaten path .. The conflict in the Middle East has Coalition Troops everywhere..communications are monitored and its hard to pull anything together without being busted ..

example: the cops are all over SH16.. lets look at a map .. whats another ' out of the way' road with nice twisties and low plod numbers ...???

never underestimate your strategic value on the world stage my friend ..

However, if our strategic value lies in our relative inconspicuousness, then surely that implies that all parties have an interest in NOT making us a focus of overt military operations?

In other words, if our value to both sides is as Spook Central (rather like Spain in WW2), then is either side going to start a shooting war around us ? (Again, Spain in WW2 may be a relevant case) .

SARGE

29th April 2007, 12:35

However, if our strategic value lies in our relative inconspicuousness, then surely that implies that all parties have an interest in NOT making us a focus of overt military operations?

In other words, if our value to both sides is as Spook Central (rather like Spain in WW2), then is either side going to start a shooting war around us ? (Again, Spain in WW2 may be a relevant case) .

right ... little patch of grass with no standing defenses .. sounds like prime pickins to me ..

lets just have a look at a few scenarios shall we?.

1) suicide hijackers take a few aircraft from Auckland International and run them into the RNZ Navy and infrastructure
2) Princes Wharf Friday night at midnight/ All Blacks V. Australia match .. 4 suicide bombers kill 2000 people and wound 5000
3) truck bomb at the Ports of Auckland etc targeting foreign ships and freight handling, cutting your badly needed supply lines

how fast will Uncle Helen hand over the keys?

France would look like WW2 Russia in comparison

Edbear

29th April 2007, 12:45

Iraq??.. ...never underestimate your strategic value on the world stage my friend ..

You basically confirm my point, Sarge. When the US announced it was going to invade Iraq, and we don't need to go over the reasons as we're simply discussing strategy, here, I knew two things for certain. A/ It was going to be a relatively short war, Iraq had no answer to the military might of the US, and very few countries do. B/ It was going to open a real can of worms and those who said it would be quick and clean and resolve the issues were talking through a hole in their hats! Now it's never going to end.

Open warfare is increasingly irrelevant in the modern environment. Subterfuge and terrorism is the way it's going and you can't fight that with the big guns. Al Qaeda said their goal was to make every single person on Earth, afraid. That no-one would know who the enemy was. How do you think they got into the "green zone"?

This ties in with the second point and you make it yourself. NZ is not going to be invaded militarily, there's no point and no need. If anyone, and I can't imagine who, wanted to invade, there are too many, too powerful allies ready to defend the country for principle's sake. Same with the Falkland's, of no consequence to anyone, economically, strategically or otherwise, just a principle.

SARGE

29th April 2007, 12:52

Open warfare is increasingly irrelevant in the modern environment. Subterfuge and terrorism is the way it's going and you can't fight that with the big guns. Al Qaeda said their goal was to make every single person on Earth, afraid. That no-one would know who the enemy was. How do you think they got into the "green zone"?

agreed ..the WoT is being fought with Kid Gloves because of the Media .. ban reporters and lawyers and lets use the Extremists rulebook.. this war will be over in 6 months ..

This ties in with the second point and you make it yourself. NZ is not going to be invaded militarily, there's no point and no need. If anyone, and I can't imagine who, wanted to invade, there are too many, too powerful allies ready to defend the country for principle's sake. Same with the Falkland's, of no consequence to anyone, economically, strategically or otherwise, just a principle.

only problem with that is the fact that NZ has this tricky Anti-Nuke policy that keeps the people who would and could defend NZ at arms length..no Nuke Carriers .. no Force Projection .. how many Excocet Missiles would it take to send the RNZ navy to the bottom of the sea?

thanks hippies ..

Ixion

29th April 2007, 12:56

Well. Yes . A *little* patch . And of grass. Most potential assailants don't actually have much interest in grass.

Question is: why is someone going to go to the very considerable cost of launching a major amphibious operation, with no feasible supply depot for thousands of miles (I'm assuming that the Ozzies don't declare war on us); suffer the opprobrium that would attract; the continuing losses to guerrilla action (believe me , there'd be plenty of that. Kiwis are NASTY when they're really mad ) ; the likelihood of retaliatory terrorist action ( Like I said, we get NASTY; and we're spread out around the world); and all the concomitant risks: for a patch of grass.

The one likely scenario would be a war between Australia and an Asian country (everyone says Indonesia, but I'd look closely at Malaysia or Thailand myself), into which we get drawn. And the enemy seeing NZ as a "soft underbelly" to strike at Oz. But that's not something that's going to blow up overnight.

And military action by any of those Asian countries against Oz, is almost as problematic as against NZ.

Starting wars is easy. Ending them (as Mr Bush is discovering) is much harder.

Oh,and 50% casualties for an opposed advance from Northern Australia to the useful and worthwhile south, with 50% casualties? Try 99.5%. That desert is harsh. And BIG.

The question I think is not whether NZ should spend money of defence (or offence. Best form of defence). Everyone except a few tree hugging peaceniks agrees on that. It's how the money should be spent.

Do we try to be a micro USA with our own tiny weeny Tonka Toy Army Navy and Airforce (How big is the Houston Air Force?) Or the Miami Navy?

Or do we spend our money and efforts in a focused niche?

The Navy is I think, a given, for an island nation with a major fisheries resource.

But if the question is how could we contribute to an allied force, then we should think commandos (which really are terrorists in a good suit). Kiwis are good at sort of thing, improvisation , small scale operations.

And we quite like blowing stuff up.

SARGE

29th April 2007, 13:02

Do we try to be a micro USA with our own tiny weeny Tonka Toy Army Navy and Airforce (How big is the Houston Air Force?) Or the Miami Navy?
.

as in ALL US cities ..

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I wouldnt attack Houston or Miami personally ..too many Rednecks and Gang members with better arms than most police departments

hard to turn an invasion back with .22's and Air rifles

but as i said .. i doubt a full anphibious attack would happen to NZ .. they would just cruise through Customs and Immigration..

Edbear

29th April 2007, 13:06

agreed ..the WoT is being fought with Kid Gloves because of the Media .. ban reporters and lawyers and lets use the Extremists rulebook.. this war will be over in 6 months ..

only problem with that is the fact that NZ has this tricky Anti-Nuke policy that keeps the people who would and could defend NZ at arms length..no Nuke Carriers .. no Force Projection .. how many Excocet Missiles would it take to send the RNZ navy to the bottom of the sea?

thanks hippies ..

It's only posturing, really. I doubt that the US gummint really cares a toss about NZ's stance, they've got far more important things to worry about. They just have to say something to be politically correct. NZ would merely be an incidental, a means to slap the face of the big guys, and for that reason would be defended. But as I say, the invasion would be done by, well, you said it yourself, immigration, and for what purpose? NZ means logistical difficulties which outweigh the innocence of the population and the relative freedom the baddies can have here. Harder to hide here, too, with the small population.

It's proven surprisingly easy to use the US itself, to train and equip terrorists. Which emphasises my point that you can't fight what you can't see.

Ixion

29th April 2007, 13:15

as in ALL US cities ..

I wouldnt attack Houston or Miami personally ..too many Rednecks and Gang members with better arms than most police departments

hard to turn an invasion back with .22's and Air rifles

but as i said .. i doubt a full anphibious attack would happen to NZ .. they would just cruise through Customs and Immigration..

A well regulated Militia it says. Rednecks and gangs, no matter how bling their ordnance, do not comprise a Militia, let alone a well regulated one. And a professional Navy or air Force is several steps up from that.

You know (better than anyone) how long even a huge mob, no matter how well armed, will survive in the field against even a small body of professional, disciplined, well trained troops.

Fighting in city ruins, another matter. As Mr Bush is discovering. But that strength lies with the defenders not the attackers.

EIT: Has anyone ever determined what percentage of US gun owners DO actually belong to a "well regulated militia". I bet it's a small percentage.

jrandom

29th April 2007, 15:11

right ... little patch of grass with no standing defenses .. sounds like prime pickins to me...

But only for a regular military force.

suicide hijackers... 4 suicide bombers... truck bomb

Wouldn't make any difference to anything substantial. Terrorists can't take and hold ground. Tobacco smoking, road crashes, domestic violence and lightning strikes are all far greater threats to us than terrorism. In fact, that applies equally to the USA, although nobody there seem to have figured it out yet.

For that matter, terrorists operate to get invaders off their own land, or to influence a foreign power to change its policy. Neither of those motivations is likely to relate to attacks against NZ.

how fast will Uncle Helen hand over the keys?

Hand them over to whom? Hijackers and truck bombers can't take our country away. That requires infantry divisions.

And, let's face it. If a large Asian or Southeast Asian nation decides to annex NZ by force, there are only two possible outcomes - either they sweep in with a minimum of fuss, or a large European country decides that it's in its own best interests to intervene in NZ's defence.

And I second Ixion's points about the stickiness of the ongoing position for any invading force. There wouldn't be armour opposing them on the beaches, but they'd find that the highways, hills, forests and surburbs would suddenly become very unhealthy places to stick their heads up.

Welcome to the insurgency, motherfuckers. :)

Timber020

29th April 2007, 20:19

The American army are a self supporting machine, They require so much money and energy to keep moving they have to be grabbing sizable assets to keep afloat and at the same time they make more enemys than they defeat. America is insuring that they have a sustainable terrorist enemy to harvest, what a great way to justifying having such a huge standing army.

The US has a bleak future unless it can do something huge to get out of the potential of its dollar being worth the same as the paso. The only thing is, what the huge thing will be.

Swoop

29th April 2007, 20:23

the Fleet suffered by no means trivial casualties, all inflicted by land based aircraft. The Argentinian aircraft carriers played no part at all.
Quite correct, however it can be argued that the "fleets" losses were self inflicted...

As for the Argentinian carrier not playing a part? The General Belgrano was not sunk without reason.

Ixion

29th April 2007, 20:50

The Belgrano was a cruiser (heavy I think - amazing how hard it was not to spell that crusier). Their notable carrier was the Dos de Mayo (I think. Summat of May anyway), which was not sunk. The subs had it in their sights but Admiralty hummed and hawed and pussied around about whether it was in a bay or not . No I never understood what difference it made either, just sink the bastards is my motto. Nelson wouldn't have bothere asking permission. But anyway the carrier sneaked out with its tail between its legs and headed for home port at flank speed, whence it did not emerge again for the duration of the war.

sAsLEX

29th April 2007, 21:20

Do away with aircraft carriers "because the Air Force says it can defend the fleet at sea from any piece of land".

The RAF contribution to that war? One single bomb dropped successfully on Port Stanley runway.

Well they only just announced the new carriers..... there were mutterings that was not going to happen

oh and the S.A.S were in a position to destroy a sizeable chunk of the Argies Air Fleet but called it off at the last minute....

In that same little dust up, the Fleet suffered by no means trivial casualties, all inflicted by land based aircraft. The Argentinian aircraft carriers played no part at all.

Not to mention that a "Guided Missile Cruiser" can , in reality, be little more than a cheap box with a bunch of missile batteries and some clever electronics. A clever country could make them from old freighters and some #8 wire and corrogated iron.

See above they had oppurtunity to fix their land based air but it didnt pan out. Oh and as someone said above blame the loss of one ship on poor driving by the captain who turned in front of the ship about to save his arse.

Oh and the states have looked in to your missile boat idea, having simple unmanned missile ships in the Battle Group controlled by Aegis cruisers so they are basically a floating magazine..... would look damn impressive if they got hit!

Starting wars is easy. Ending them (as Mr Bush is discovering) is much harder.

It's how the money should be spent.

The Navy is I think, a given, for an island nation with a major fisheries resource.

But if the question is how could we contribute to an allied force, then we should think commandos (which really are terrorists in a good suit). Kiwis are good at sort of thing, improvisation , small scale operations.

And we quite like blowing stuff up.

Little Man and Fat Boy ring a bell Ixion? Past US presidents haven't had trouble quickly ending a war if need be....

Look at the new protector fleet we are getting. It like you say a way to spend money on things that we need, four Patrol vessels for inshore fisheries and customs work, 2 Offshore Patrol vessels for doing the same thing at a further distance such as the Patagonian tooth fisheries, and finally the Multi Role Vessel so the Army can finally take their LAVs somewhere and to be used in disaster relief etc. All the new vessles haves berths for customs and fisheries and they are expected to be on board for all patrols.

Our Defence Force can be utilised effectively in providing personnel not to simply defend New Zealand by force but to buddy up to some nice big friends (bar the US thanks greenies) through peacekeeping(all over the world at present) and Special Ops (SAS in Afghanistan) and other things.

Quite correct, however it can be argued that the "fleets" losses were self inflicted...

Delerium

29th April 2007, 21:22

Special forces units are NOT terrorists in a suit. they do not deliberately conduct mass targetings of civilians.

Do you really expect ANY country to help another in a military situation if they are not prepared to help themselvs?

Dont forget NZ is the gateway for antarctica. Lots of oil there too.

There has been many comments that have been incorrect in the media. Army helicopters? nope sorry we dont have them. navy and airforce do though. Skyhawks are old and useless. Nope, the israil's have used them just as long as we have, and may still do so. heard of the 7 day war?

And remember, a military can carry out peacekeeping, a peacekeeping force cannot conduct warfare.

when it comes to military equipment its like comparing the 2007 formula 1 car with an averge joe driving it to the 1960s with a professional driver. except in warfare you only get one crack at it. Have a read of shooting from the lip. has a few interesting points regarding this and its a damn funny read.

Swoop

30th April 2007, 08:09

Their notable carrier was the Dos de Mayo (I think. Summat of May anyway), which was not sunk.
Veinticinco de Mayo

The subs had it in their sights but Admiralty hummed and hawed and pussied around about whether it was in a bay or not. ... But anyway the carrier sneaked out with its tail between its legs and headed for home port at flank speed, whence it did not emerge again for the duration of the war.
The carrier was involved in a two part pincer movement against the British carriers (I'll find the date tonight once home). 25May was to the north west of the group with several escorts and the Belgrano was to the south west (with HMS Conqueror in trail). The 25May could not find enough wind to launch her aircraft due to unusually calm seas and an aged steam catapult which lacked sufficient "Oomph" to launch an armed up arcraft.
An 801 Squadron Sea Harrier searched for, and located, the carrier/escort group. Argies didn't hang around after that and the Brits decided to get the Belgrano out of the equasion.

Swoop

30th April 2007, 21:05

The carrier was involved in a two part pincer movement against the British carriers (I'll find the date tonight once home). 25May was to the north west of the group with several escorts and the Belgrano was to the south west (with HMS Conqueror in trail).
Date was 2 May 1982.

Apologies. Belgrano was not a single ship, but was involved with a group of other ships as escorts to her. Belgrano was Exocet armed.

Ixion

30th April 2007, 22:06

Four escorts I think. They tried depth charging the sub, but it was already gone, fast and deep. There was some criticism IIRC that the escorts spent time depth charging the sub instead of picking up survivors. But I guess thats what the Navy do.

sAsLEX

3rd May 2007, 09:34

There has been many comments that have been incorrect in the media. Army helicopters? nope sorry we dont have them. navy and airforce do though.

Have a read of shooting from the lip. has a few interesting points regarding this and its a damn funny read.

WEll not according to Helen, her comment saw allot of the Irqs changing back from Army green to grey or white quicker than you can say

" I would throw my toys out of the cot but Aunty Helen has already taken all the other ones so I will keep these close......"

Yes a very good book..............DU poo!

Delerium

3rd May 2007, 12:27

yip and in the right light they look purple too (im serious they DO look purple)

cheese

3rd May 2007, 13:38

Bah the ships break down and suddenly the navy is fucked? It would be a more interesting story with some more facts in it. Like what happened exactly etc. Being ex-navy you do drills like this non stop all the time (in between the stops in port and just spending the entire time drunk)

Look at what happened in auckland with the power cut. The smallest part can bring the entire thing crashing down.

NighthawkNZ

3rd May 2007, 15:37

Being ex-navy you do drills like this non stop all the time (in between the stops in port and just spending the entire time drunk)

For Exercise... For Exercise... For Exercise...
Fire in 3Echo ... Fire in 3Echo ...

ah the memories of it all

Delerium

3rd May 2007, 21:39

same applys to the airforce aircraft. they get bad press when one fails to leave overseas when it has a fault. well what do you expect they are coming up to 50 years old. You dong drive a 50 year old car as hard as thes aircraft, in the harsh environments that they go and expect them to not fail. ever.

Same principle with the army gear. Take the unimog crashes for example. Everybody was having a cry over a few crashes recently. what wasnt publicised was the size of the fleet and hours of use. Lets compare the crash rate per distance driven with every other company on the country. I will put money on the fact it is similar or lower.

NighthawkNZ

3rd May 2007, 22:28

cheese

4th May 2007, 12:10

It's all to do with the old saying,

if you are a king, you can build roads, make a fine kingdom and the people are happy. But fuck just one goat.....

Swoop

4th May 2007, 12:37

For Exercise... For Exercise... For Exercise...
Fire in 3Echo ... Fire in 3Echo ...

ah the memories of it all
Better put that one out in a hurry... close to the magazine IIRC:scratch:

NighthawkNZ

4th May 2007, 13:57

Better put that one out in a hurry... close to the magazine IIRC:scratch:

yup.... :lol:

sAsLEX

4th May 2007, 17:41

Better put that one out in a hurry... close to the magazine IIRC:scratch:

I would be more concerned if I heard

SAFEGAURD SAFEGAURD SAFEGAURD

2much

4th May 2007, 19:27

For Exercise... For Exercise... For Exercise...
Fire in 3Echo ... Fire in 3Echo ...

ah the memories of it all

The gunners mess? ah fuck it, let it burn.

doc

4th May 2007, 19:33

I would be more concerned if I heard

SAFEGAURD SAFEGAURD SAFEGAURD
"We need Volunteer's " Always scared me.

Swoop

4th May 2007, 20:13

The gunners mess? ah fuck it, let it burn.
SHIT NO!!!!!
Save the squirt!

(I still have nasty memories of getting pissed in there)

sAsLEX

5th May 2007, 02:29

(I still have nasty memories of getting pissed in there)

mmmmm Gunners Gin.........

cheese

5th May 2007, 10:26

eeew GI juice. Glad I was a tech. We had the best lifestyle. On endeavour we even had a spa pool made up. It was fucking wicked.

Oh yeah and 3Echo - just flood it to put out the fire. It's only the gunners. Actually wasn't that the front bums mess towards the later years? I can't remember I left 7 years ago now. Go 3Mike Port

dogsnbikes

5th May 2007, 10:54

For Exercise... For Exercise... For Exercise...
Fire in 3Echo ... Fire in 3Echo ...

ah the memories of it all

Oh yes :Punk: and the sound of "hands to emergancie stations 7/4/93"

Oh crap someones wasp took a swim :shutup: oh shit its our wasp "HMNZS Canterbury":innocent:

2much

5th May 2007, 11:49

sAsLEX

10th May 2007, 03:00

Actually wasn't that the front bums mess towards the later years?

Go 3Mike Port
See you still remember the correct naval terminology for the wrens!

Mess Monkey.

Ever conquer that ??

NighthawkNZ

10th May 2007, 07:26

dang seems to be a lot of ex-jacks around... as the saying goes... you may leave the services but the services will never leave you...

I left in 1991... sheese...

gunnyrob

10th May 2007, 09:35

I'm off to sea agaain late June, off up to China & Japan me hearties.....AAAAARRRRRh!

Chrislost

5th July 2007, 12:51

Iraq??.. Defenseless??... i doubt it .. Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world prior to Desert Storm and they gave Iran a good run in their little 'misunderstanding'

also not afraid of gassing dissidents in their own country ( by dissidents.. i mean women and children)

dont think NZ is safe..the Japanese were keen to get a foothold here in WW2 and if it wasn't for US Admiral Nimitz im pretty sure the map would look a bit different today.. NZ IS being invaded .. not through military means .. through immigration .. Mt. Roskill has a HUGE Arab community.. you cant tell me for a blue second that NONE of the Islamic immigrants has connections or at least loyalty to the extremists ..lets not forget about Asian gangs ..(which the NZ police are ill-equipped to deal with)

i arrived here Sept 20 2001 .. on that day ( look it up) there was a boat full of Afghan Refuges arrived..apparently they had been on the water for a few months at that time ..for some reason , they HAD to get out of Afghanistan right away .. think maybe they knew something was coming .. how could they have known??.. i doubt the Taliban took out a full page advert in the Afghan Daily news to say " we are attacking the US , prepare to leave.."

NZ is a target BECAUSE it is so far out off the beaten path .. The conflict in the Middle East has Coalition Troops everywhere..communications are monitored and its hard to pull anything together without being busted ..

example: the cops are all over SH16.. lets look at a map .. whats another ' out of the way' road with nice twisties and low plod numbers ...???

never underestimate your strategic value on the world stage my friend ..

+1
..............