The new HMNZS Canterbury [Archive]

cheese

13th June 2007, 12:52

Yeah the Chuck upham was a monumental disaster. I worked on that boat installing some gear and it came down to that the Army boys decided they wanted a multi purpose boat, got a civi transport boat and said to the Navy make it work. Some of the main issues was that it was not designed to work the way they wanted to and it was far too light. it was like a cork in the sea!! It just wasn't designed to work they wanted it to and to add ballast tanks would have been just uneconomical.

I agree about that the boat was an insult to the man. It was all good intentions and bad planning, sounds like the defense forces in general!

SPman

13th June 2007, 13:44

By the sound of it, the new Canterbury will be a far better and more versatile ship than the Upham.
- a lot more versatile than a clapped out old Frigate.

Hitcher

13th June 2007, 13:59

HMNZS Canterbury. How singularly unimaginative.

How come the list of names for New Zealand warships is so small, particularly the ones named after "provinces"?

Why has there never been an HMNZS

Northland
Bay of Plenty
Poverty Bay
King Country
Manawatu
Hawke's Bay
Wairarapa
Horowhenua
Nelson
Blenheim or
Westland?

Or is this some sort of cost-saving measure whereby the navy can recycle the crockery and stationery from the last vessel to bear that name?

terbang

13th June 2007, 14:48

And Waiuku.

As a point, the RNZAF is not only in a transport role. they also have maritime patrol squadron that also assists with the EEZ border protection.

Swoop

13th June 2007, 15:04

Why has there never been an HMNZS...
You missed the HMNZS Auckland.

However this vessel would have four captains at any one time, the passageways around the ship would be incomplete, those passageways would be crowded with fish-heads muttering about the amount of sailors congesting the passageways...
Also, the flight deck cannot be used for sporting occasions. These would have to be held on the HMNZS Hamilton...

Hitcher

13th June 2007, 15:28

You missed the HMNZS Auckland.

Has there never been an HMNZS Auckland? That's shocking!

Scouse

13th June 2007, 17:13

What about an HMNZS Absolutely Gayly Wellington

NighthawkNZ

13th June 2007, 17:21

info on the new protector fleet can be found here

http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/default.htm

mdooher

13th June 2007, 17:28

Flatcap

13th June 2007, 17:33

Don't get started on to their wonderful idea of putting all of the airforce into the least number of bases possible

Are you telling us there is enough of an airforce to warrant more than one base?

I thought we only had a couple of Hercules and some Vietnam war era Hueys...

NighthawkNZ

13th June 2007, 17:35

I see it has a "25mm Naval gun" WW2 tanks had more firepower than this piece of junk!

25mm that fires 200 rounds a minute...

Its not a war ship its a cargo carrier or Multi Role Vessel, its to suppliment the fleet as a whole.

Also in time of war most vessels get the extra armament as required.

Storm

13th June 2007, 17:35

What did I tell you ? Voting time's coming back around, you all know what to do.

NighthawkNZ

13th June 2007, 17:36

I thought we only had a couple of Hercules and some Vietnam war era Hueys...

and the aging P3's

SPman

13th June 2007, 18:00

I see the new IPV's are named after the last batch of patrol craft (which were, in turn, named after the frigates of the 50's)- I hope they are better sea boats - I was never sea sick in my life, until I did a weekend on the Hawea! - sea sick tabs were standard issue - even to old salts, so I was first in line when I had 2 weeks on the Taupo.

Personally, I think the navy is going in the right direction with these ships - they will hopefully be better suited to the role the Navy plays around NZ and the South Pacific

NighthawkNZ

13th June 2007, 18:04

I see the new IPV's are named after the last batch of patrol craft (which were, in turn, named after the frigates of the 50's)- I hope they are better sea boats - I was never sea sick in my life, until I did a weekend on the Hawea! - sea sick tabs were standard issue - even to old salts, so I was first in line when I had 2 weeks on the Taupo.

I served on the old lake class PC Pukaki for 7 months... and like you was never sea sick till I served on her... tho I had great fun

Personally, I think the navy is going in the right direction with these ships - they will hopefully be better suited to the role the Navy plays around NZ and the South Pacific

agreed :)

mdooher

13th June 2007, 18:07

25mm that fires 200 rounds a minute...

Its not a war ship its a cargo carrier or Multi Role Vessel, its to suppliment the fleet as a whole.

.

That would be ok if we had some war ships as well

NighthawkNZ

13th June 2007, 18:10

That would be ok if we had some war ships as well

we have a couple... :gob: thing is, kiwis want them, but don't want to fracking pay for them... :gob:

mdooher

13th June 2007, 18:13

Are you telling us there is enough of an airforce to warrant more than one base?

I thought we only had a couple of Hercules and some Vietnam war era Hueys...

you are quite right there but the same people who downsized the airforce sold off the bases ...cos... well they had been downsized.

Doesn't mattter how small your defence force is you don't centralise it.

mdooher

13th June 2007, 18:20

... :gob: thing is, kiwis want them, but don't want to fracking pay for them... :gob:

too true... well not the whale hugging hippie variety anyway.

I think we should have lots of big fuck off scarry guns.

nudemetalz

13th June 2007, 20:52

We shouldn't all forget that when the Skyhawks were delivered to NZ in 1970, our lovely Prime Minister Aunty Helen was then one of the many protesters there when they were towed through the city to Whenuapai.
How ironic that she signed off the scrapping of the RNZAF Strike Force... :angry2:

Hitcher

14th June 2007, 08:56

Flatcap

14th June 2007, 08:59

you are quite right there but the same people who downsized the airforce sold off the bases ...cos... well they had been downsized.

Doesn't mattter how small your defence force is you don't centralise it.

Agreed - eggs in one basket and such

nudemetalz

14th June 2007, 09:29

Hardly "ironic". I think you've been listening to too much Alanis Morrisette.

okay, maybe "ironic" wasn't the right word.
It was a sad day when they did there final flypast together with the '339s over Wellington.

Lias

14th June 2007, 11:37

I'd like to see us focus a bit more on an anti shipping role, both on the water and in the air.

Any potential invasion force would be coming by water, so our defense strategy should be focused on sinking it before it gets here.. Could also be useful for ships full of illegal immigrants, foreign trawlers and jap whalers.

On the water I'd like to see us focus on AEGIS ships, aussie is due to finalize its choice of plans for its Hobart class destroyers and I believe we should purchase a couple of whatever they buy. Some sub's wouldnt go amiss either, some nice diesel or fuelcell hunterkillers. The german Type 214 looks quite appealing.

In the air we need some air superiority craft, that are capable of longish range missions and inflight refuelling. I'm thinking F-15C's but I'm open to alternatives. We also need a platform to launch ASM's from, personally I'd go with B52's, old as they may be, just load em up with a truckload of Harpoons.

And last but not least we need some land based Harpoons or similar ASM's for good measure as well.

What say you? (Especially you ex navy types)

Hitcher

14th June 2007, 11:51

I'd like to see us focus a bit more on an anti shipping role, both on the water and in the air.

You cannot be serious? "Invasion" by whom? Fiji? Australia? The United States of America?

And the rest of your shopping list assumes that we are going to put ourselves in a position where we will stand toe-to-toe with any prospective aggressor/invader and trade punches. Puhlease. The best equipped and trained soldier in the world will never be a match for an army.

And besides, we can't recruit enough military types to adequately staff our current resources, let alone a potential submarine and surface attack vessel force. I'd rather have tax cuts so I can buy sexier toys, rather than having the government do this in my stead.

I think you've been reading too much Tom Clancy.

Swoop

14th June 2007, 12:16

I'd like to see...
How would this be paid for?
We are stretching the budget to get this new support ship!

Having the toys is one thing, paying for them is another... or will the GE Money Genie come to our aid?

NighthawkNZ

14th June 2007, 12:23

We are stretching the budget to get this new support ship!

Its not really.. especially when they say the have X amount of millions in surplus... that didn't get out tax break...

However.. I will agree there isn't a need to have what "Lias" wants... :gob: but will agree that we need a front line first strike air force...

And to say that the old skyhawks were never used in anger or fired a live round in anger or armed conflict... errr in my eyes thats a good thing means they were doing there job

Indiana_Jones

14th June 2007, 12:37

25mm that fires 200 rounds a minute...

Too bad there's only 50 rounds.........which can't be in the gun at anytime until the vessel is shot upon........

Then they have to get permission from the captain, who then has to get permission from Helen Clark, which she will then have to hold an emergency meeting of parlament, and try to reason with the threat in a non violent way, if that fails look for alternative options.

If they do decide to use the gun, then Clark must fly out to the ship with the 2nd key and firing codes. She and the captain must turn their keys at the same time, she then puts in the 24 digit firing code.....

That unlocks the storage case where the ammo is stored (which is at the other end of the vessel from the gun).

A bomb squad followed by a damage control team then move the ammo to the fun.

While this is happening, Clark and the captain are getting the second set of keys and codes out to allow the gun to be armed.

The gun is then loaded, everyone that isn't needed on the ship must leave, as to minimize losses should something go wrong. A safety officer checks the ship 2 times.

Then there is one more meeting held in parlament, to make sure this is what they really want to do (I mean come on, it's a live weapon now).

If that passes, then fire away!

-Indy

nudemetalz

14th June 2007, 12:52

When I was in the army (the Terris) I went on an exercise. As well as my Steyr, I had an M79 Grenade Launcher. As they didn't have any grenades available at the time, I had a wooden block put in it.
So when it came time to shoot against the enemy, I was firing blanks from my Steyr as you'd expect and the RSM would tell me to "shoot" a grenade in the direction and I had to yell "BANG" as I "simulated this" !!!!!!!!!!
Sad stuff........

SPman

14th June 2007, 13:37

However.. I will agree there isn't a need to have what "Lias" wants... :gob: but will agree that we need a front line first strike air force...

And to say that the old skyhawks were never used in anger or fired a live round in anger or armed conflict... errr in my eyes thats a good thing means they were doing there job
They may have been old, but, as an anti shipping attack aircraft, they were still good,the Macchi's were a great backup plane - and the crews and support staff were great - but - that's all gone now - would take 8-10 yrs to bring a new strike aircraft group up to that level of expertise and experience again.
As a Navy, we should be concentrating on robust patrolling of the EEZ, fisheries, etc, with deployment to the immediate environs - that means blue water capable ships, that don't need to be heavily armed. They're dealing mainly with fishing boats and freighters - a Frigate has a very short life expectancy in any serious battle situation, anyway and also need the ability to move stuff around quickly. Capability to work together with the Aussies is also a consideration.I think the way the Navy is heading is the right one for NZ's situation and bank balance - unless the country is prepared to spend 15% of it's GDP on defence, for the next 10 yrs!

A pity about the Airforce though.

marty

14th June 2007, 13:45

all the fast jet experience in engineering and flying has gone from the airforce, and without the infrastructure, i can't see fast jets ever becoming part of our defence again.

even the king airs, as our primary rnzaf twin trainer and exec transport around nz, are privately owned, and leased by the airforce, although they are costing a packet due age, and there is some talk that the lease contract (which was for the next 10 years) is going to be terminated.

Lias

14th June 2007, 15:02

You cannot be serious? "Invasion" by whom? Fiji? Australia? The United States of America?

The main threat to our nation currently is Indonesia. Most people dont realise that Indonesia is actually the 4th most populated country in the world, with over 220 million people, 88% of whom are muslim. Indonesia is a militant, aggresive nation with a history of attacking its neighbours. Java is also the most overpopulated Island in the entire world. Australia has the majority of its army based in the Northern Territory specifically to warnoff Indonesia. Australia have a strong military, we do not and for this reason we are a potential target for Indonesia which needs more land.

And the rest of your shopping list assumes that we are going to put ourselves in a position where we will stand toe-to-toe with any prospective aggressor/invader and trade punches. Puhlease. The best equipped and trained soldier in the world will never be a match for an army.

We only need to ensure that we have an airforce and navy capable of taking out the Indonesia Navy.

And besides, we can't recruit enough military types to adequately staff our current resources, let alone a potential submarine and surface attack vessel force. I'd rather have tax cuts so I can buy sexier toys, rather than having the government do this in my stead.

Twofold, First we increase the pay and conditions of our armed forces, rather than shitting on them constantly as our government currently does. Second we reintroduce compulsory national service, requiring all 18-25 year olds to serve a minimum of 2 years in the armed forces. With the training they would received particular in the trades side of things we would drastically reduce the number of people taking our student loans to get civilian qualifications. I'd also abolish the longterm dole, allow maybe a 1-2 month period to cover people between jobs, beyond that they'd be in labour battallions building roads etc (and thus saving more money on our roading bills)

I think you've been reading too much Tom Clancy.

I'm not really a huge fan of Tom Clancey.. too Hollywood.

How would this be paid for?
We are stretching the budget to get this new support ship!

Having the toys is one thing, paying for them is another... or will the GE Money Genie come to our aid?

No, just cutting back un-needed expenditure.. Cutting benefits, abolishing NZ on air / arts funding, closing the ministries of maori affairs, womens affairs, pacific island affairs, and generally giving the PSA a heart attacks as I slashed the govt bureaucracy numbers and perks, curtalling wasteful tertiary spending (no more twilight golf courses or "Cool IT" courses paid for by the govt), making prisons turn a profit, or only a minimal loss (no more tv's, playstations, underfloor heating etc.. basic subsistence food and hard labour).. I could go on for hours, our government is chock full of unneeded PC handouts and bludging public servants.

Swoop

14th June 2007, 16:26

No, just cutting back un-needed expenditure.. Cutting benefits, abolishing NZ on air / arts funding, closing the ministries of maori affairs, womens affairs, pacific island affairs, and generally giving the PSA a heart attacks as I slashed the govt bureaucracy numbers and perks, curtalling wasteful tertiary spending (no more twilight golf courses or "Cool IT" courses paid for by the govt), making prisons turn a profit, or only a minimal loss (no more tv's, playstations, underfloor heating etc.. basic subsistence food and hard labour).. I could go on for hours, our government is chock full of unneeded PC handouts and bludging public servants.
Why the f*ck aren't you Prime Minister?

Wolf

14th June 2007, 16:39

Why the f*ck aren't you Prime Minister?
Because I control the explosive device wired into his skull should he ever try...

Lias

14th June 2007, 16:43

Why the f*ck aren't you Prime Minister?

I'm far too blunt and honest. I dont like lieing or swindling the public, and I tend to respond to a knife in a the back with a fist to the nose :yes:

oldrider

14th June 2007, 16:44

Why the f*ck aren't you Prime Minister?

Well, anything would be better than the embarrasing b***h that we have got now!

Lias makes some compelling points in his post. :yes: John.

sAsLEX

14th June 2007, 17:33

25mm that fires 200 rounds a minute...

Its not a war ship its a cargo carrier or Multi Role Vessel, its to suppliment the fleet as a whole.

Also in time of war most vessels get the extra armament as required.

Yeah......

"excuse me Grunt want to sit on the deck with your mistral? We aint got any real defences......"

and the aging P3's

How old are the B52s and when do they leave service

too true... well not the whale hugging hippie variety anyway.

I think we should have lots of big fuck off scarry guns.

Guns are old school! Don't see any new ships with 18 inchs anymore.

5 inch ERGM munitions maybe, but missiles are the new thing.

Delerium

14th June 2007, 17:35

Homework assignment: find out the % of GDP we spend on defence. Compare it to our allies.

step 2, find out the wages of typical soldiers airman and sailors.

sAsLEX

14th June 2007, 17:38

They may have been old, but, as an anti shipping attack aircraft, they were still good,the Macchi's were a great backup plane - and the crews and support staff were great - but - that's all gone now - would take 8-10 yrs to bring a new strike aircraft group up to that level of expertise and experience again.
As a Navy, we should be concentrating on robust patrolling of the EEZ, fisheries, etc, with deployment to the immediate environs - that means blue water capable ships, that don't need to be heavily armed. They're dealing mainly with fishing boats and freighters - a Frigate has a very short life expectancy in any serious battle situation, anyway and also need the ability to move stuff around quickly. Capability to work together with the Aussies is also a consideration.I think the way the Navy is heading is the right one for NZ's situation and bank balance - unless the country is prepared to spend 15% of it's GDP on defence, for the next 10 yrs!

A pity about the Airforce though.

Worked well enough in the Falklands...

And chumming up to Aussy is one thing, we need to get back on decent terms with the states so we have a real big friend should the shit hit the fan, ie like Australia have done.

Its not really.. especially when they say the have X amount of millions in surplus... that didn't get out tax break...

However.. I will agree there isn't a need to have what "Lias" wants... :gob: but will agree that we need a front line first strike air force...

And to say that the old skyhawks were never used in anger or fired a live round in anger or armed conflict... errr in my eyes thats a good thing means they were doing there job

yeah they did, off Taranaki.

Chrislost

14th June 2007, 17:38

You cannot be serious? "Invasion" by whom? Fiji? Australia? The United States of America?

And the rest of your shopping list assumes that we are going to put ourselves in a position where we will stand toe-to-toe with any prospective aggressor/invader and trade punches. Puhlease. The best equipped and trained soldier in the world will never be a match for an army.

And besides, we can't recruit enough military types to adequately staff our current resources, let alone a potential submarine and surface attack vessel force. I'd rather have tax cuts so I can buy sexier toys, rather than having the government do this in my stead.

I think you've been reading too much Tom Clancy.

think indonesia(as soon as USA is too bogged down) china etc etc you stupid old fart

sAsLEX

14th June 2007, 17:40

Homework assignment: find out the % of GDP we spend on defence. Compare it to our allies.

step 2, find out the wages of typical soldiers airman and sailors.

One of the lowest in the developed world I would think you would find.

Starting salary for grunts and sailors around 16-19k. In Australia you train on 30k, move to 45k and within two years on ~60k.

I wont be on 60 till after around 7 years in the RNZN.

NighthawkNZ

14th June 2007, 17:45

yeah they did, off Taranaki.

when.. and at what, or who... ???

NighthawkNZ

14th June 2007, 17:54

Yeah......
How old are the B52s and when do they leave service

about the same age... but they have been in and out of retirement twice, and been refited and refurbished more times than the P3's. Over all on average the P3's have done more flying hours than the yanks b52s.

sAsLEX

14th June 2007, 17:57

when.. and at what, or who... ???

A squid boat

Although the RNZAF Skyhawks were never used for air-to-air combat, they were used on one occasion in the air-to-ground role. On 30 March 1976, two RNZAF Skyhawks, flown by F/Lt Jim Jennings and F/Lt John Herron, were required to head off a Taiwanese squid boat (Kin Nan - see above), which had been caught fishing inside New Zealand’s territorial waters. After the offending boat failed to stop for the naval patrol vessel HMNZS Taupo, Jennings fired warning shots into the sea in front of it. The Taiwanese captain had no problem in understanding the message the Skyhawks delivered and stopped his vessel immediately. This incident received world-wide media coverage and sent out a clear message that New Zealand was serious about protecting its borders and would use force if necessary.

NighthawkNZ

14th June 2007, 18:00

A squid boat

learn something new every day ;)

nudemetalz

14th June 2007, 18:08

Granted that I didn't go into the Territorials for the money, I got paid $6.07 per hour and that's before the secondary income rate of 33% tax come off it.

Not a lot value when you think trained to be sent to war.

But I did get to play with some big guns !!

Chrislost

14th June 2007, 18:47

so they were theiving our fish then and now they do it (from within)

did you know that 23% of NZ is asian now!:sick: and thats not counting the "just visiting" ones

when will people realise there is enough

Magua

14th June 2007, 18:52

Wolf

14th June 2007, 20:28

we need to get back on decent terms with the states so we have a real big friend should the shit hit the fan, ie like Australia have done.
You've gotta be kidding! Cosy-up to Curious George? Do his filthy work for him? Help him invade the next oil-rich country he desires to control?

If the shit ever hit the fan on a global scale the States would be the first ones invading - errrr, sorry, annexing - our fair country for use as a strategic territory.

Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be to be over-run by the scruffiest-looking, least-disciplined soldiers in the history of humankind for the SECOND TIME in a hundred years?

Is the Battle of Manners St no indication to you of what being on "friendly terms" with septic soldiers really means?

No offence intended to SARGE and Waylander who're both cool guys, no offence to the average US citizen, either.

It's those in-bred cousins-of-George who think "Freedom" doesn't apply to "niggers" and are too retarded to tell the difference between a Maori and an African that bug the shit out of me.

Them and the retarded War-Criminal-in-Chief issuing the orders.

YLWDUC

14th June 2007, 20:44

I'd like to see us focus a bit more on an anti shipping role, both on the water and in the air.

On the water I'd like to see us focus on AEGIS ships, Some sub's wouldnt go amiss either, some nice diesel or fuelcell hunterkillers. The german Type 214 looks quite appealing.

In the air we need some air superiority craft, I'm thinking F-15C's but I'm open to alternatives. We also need a platform to launch ASM's from, personally I'd go with B52's, And last but not least we need some land based Harpoons or similar ASM's for good measure as well.

What say you? (Especially you ex navy types)

Dreaming....

YLWDUC

14th June 2007, 20:46

I see it has a "25mm Naval gun" WW2 tanks had more firepower than this piece of junk! ... see what happens when you let a whale hugger run your millitary. Don't get started on to their wonderful idea of putting all of the airforce into the least number of bases possible

MOD didn't want the ship to be viewed as a 'combatant' with a large calibre gun, so they arranged for the poxy 25mm. Plus it uses the same ammo as the LAV's.

(And when they get really scared, they can park their 10 LAV passengers up on deck and turn it into one of them old man'o'wars

oldrider

14th June 2007, 21:18

You've gotta be kidding! Cosy-up to Curious George? Do his filthy work for him? Help him invade the next oil-rich country he desires to control?

IF you don't like the oil, don't use it then!

If the shit ever hit the fan on a global scale the States would be the first ones invading - errrr, sorry, annexing - our fair country for use as a strategic territory.

They were very welcome in the forties, if it wasn't them it would have been the Japs

Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be to be over-run by the scruffiest-looking, least-disciplined soldiers in the history of humankind for the SECOND TIME in a hundred years?

They were not too scruffy or undisciplined as I remember.

Is the Battle of Manners St no indication to you of what being on "friendly terms" with septic soldiers really means?

What you read and what really happened are not quite the same as I remember.

No offence intended to SARGE and Waylander who're both cool guys, no offence to the average US citizen, either.

It's those in-bred cousins-of-George who think "Freedom" doesn't apply to "niggers" and are too retarded to tell the difference between a Maori and an African that bug the shit out of me.

Them and the retarded War-Criminal-in-Chief issuing the orders.

Think about it, if Israel was to be defeated and the USA continued to lose face and ground and only be able to defend herself, just "who" would be interested, let alone "able" to defend us and Australia!

Helen Clark states that we live in a benign area of the world, how does she think it is going to stay that way with her "stated" policies, or by the policies that she knows we "must" adopt to survive!

The average age of the Indonesian "hordes" (who love us to bits) just above us is 24yrs, what is the average age of New Zealand and Australia and how many of our new people are loyal enough to want to defend us.

Does our armed force have the capability and equipment to even stall a determined invader, let alone defend us?

Wake up and smell the roses, like it or not, we need "Georgie boy" more than he needs us, despite what the socialists tell you! :yes: John.

Magua

14th June 2007, 21:21

What's all this about Indonesian Hordes? Have we ever been threatened by Indonesia? :P

NighthawkNZ

14th June 2007, 21:37

MOD didn't want the ship to be viewed as a 'combatant' with a large calibre gun, so they arranged for the poxy 25mm. Plus it uses the same ammo as the LAV's.

it has more armament than HMNZS ENDEAVOUR, RESOLUTION, MANAWANUI which are un armed,

All the present inshore PC's only have one 50 cal machine gun. :scratch: and they are class as a combatant

NighthawkNZ

14th June 2007, 21:38

What's all this about Indonesian Hordes? Have we ever been threatened by Indonesia? :P

NZ hasn't but Oz has been at odds with them for many a year...

Indiana_Jones

14th June 2007, 21:45

What's all this about Indonesian Hordes? Have we ever been threatened by Indonesia? :P

I bet that's what the Pole's thought....

Those countries are over crowded and have limited reasources. Oh look there's a country with reasources and the door's wide open lol :D

-Indy

Magua

14th June 2007, 21:48

What resources do we have that Indonesia could want? Sheep? Fish?

Look at all the co-operation between Indonesia and Australia over recent years, aid etc. I don't see them throwing all that progress away..

Swoop

14th June 2007, 21:51

A squid boat
Yup, the Aussies had all the fun.

Indiana_Jones

14th June 2007, 21:52

What resources do we have that Indonesia could want? Sheep? Fish?

Trees, Coal, Gold, Asians....

-Indy

Magua

14th June 2007, 21:55

Can't they grow trees in Indonesia? :P
Coal, sure. But what Gold is left?

R6_kid

14th June 2007, 22:00

Trees, Coal, Gold, Asians....

-Indy

land and fresh water

Delerium

14th June 2007, 22:07

One of the lowest in the developed world I would think you would find.

Starting salary for grunts and sailors around 16-19k. In Australia you train on 30k, move to 45k and within two years on ~60k.

I wont be on 60 till after around 7 years in the RNZN.

Yip, and Iv been in for 7 years and im on 34 grand. although I changed trade so iv only got 4 years senority and im in a different service.

NighthawkNZ

14th June 2007, 22:09

Yip, and Iv been in for 7 years and im on 34 grand. although I changed trade so iv only got 4 years senority and im in a different service.

When I left in 91' I was on 28g

Delerium

14th June 2007, 22:09

land and fresh water

NZ is also the gateway to antarctica. Lots of oild down there isnt there? lots of food in the southern ocean too.

NighthawkNZ

14th June 2007, 22:10

NZ is also the gateway to antarctica. Lots of oild down there isnt there? lots of food in the southern ocean too.

Not forgeting the NZ itself has possibly got oil... especially southland, stewart island and southern basin...

Toaster

14th June 2007, 22:11

You missed the HMNZS Auckland.

However this vessel would have four captains at any one time, the passageways around the ship would be incomplete, those passageways would be crowded with fish-heads muttering about the amount of sailors congesting the passageways...
Also, the flight deck cannot be used for sporting occasions. These would have to be held on the HMNZS Hamilton...

Absolutely positively brilliant.

R6_kid

14th June 2007, 22:22

Why is that people that know SFA (sweet fuck all) about the military, what it ACTUALLY does, and how it is run, seem to be the ones who think they know everything and contribute endless posts of crap into threads like this?

Why do they think that a 'military' vessel/aircraft/vehicle has to be geared for aggression and fighting? Is it not apparent that other than the SAS, and a few army grunts that our country hasn't actively gone to war to fight in nearly 30 years?

The military as it currently stands is geared to protect our EEZ, (which is one of the (if not the) largest in the world comparitive to the land mass of our country.) and for peacekeeping duties.

Our country (with respect to other countries) has been at 'peace' for some time now. We don't need a strike capability in the airforce, we hadn't used the one we had in a wartime situation in the 30 years we had them does this say something to you?

The MRV is a MULTI ROLE VESSEL - it is designed for a multitude of roles (hence the name, duh)... mainly which is to deploy, support and retrieve peace keeping troops on deployment. It has the capability to operate four helicopters, which if were seasprites technically increases its armament to 8 AGM Maverick missiles - but that is not what the ship is setup for. It is setup to help patrol NZ's EZZ and be available to assist in situations of natural disasters (i.e. the job our DEFENCE force does).

There are Offshore and coastal vessels on the way aswell to do the job of patrolling the EEZ and general security tasks so that the ANZAC's can go out and do the 'im a big bad ship' job that all you tweeds so blatantly believe they are used for.

The RNZAF is recieveing 8 new 'state of the art' medium to heavy lift NH90 Helicopters which will expand the rotary lift section's (that means helicopter transport people) ability to do their current role, and they have the possibility of being fitted with a forward facing gun/rockets/missles if it is so desired. (no im not talking out my ass)... add to this the development of the 737MRA (maritime recon aircraft) which will be due to replace the P-3 Orion. Our P-3K have actually recieved loads of upgrades, and are currently undergoing airframe and avionics upgrades at the moment to extend their lifetime by up to 20years), there is also the option of a airforce/customs share in Dash-8 light maritime patrol aircraft for fisheries work.

Also the C-130's are currently undergoing a similar program where a majority of the airframe and all of the avionics are being upgraded. There is also a couple of options to replace the C-130 coming to fruition at the moment. Namely an Airbus turboprop (the name escapes me) which looks like the most likely option - the C-17 is a bit too big for our needs, and really expensive too.

The army... the army. Well they got far too many LAVIII's to start with, so they probably wont get anything for a good while yet...

But my point is, nearly all of you dont know WTF you are talking about (with the exception of Lias and SaSlex and one or two others)

R6_kid

14th June 2007, 22:27

RT527

14th June 2007, 22:31

Think about it, if Israel was to be defeated and the USA continued to lose face and ground and only be able to defend herself, just "who" would be interested, let alone "able" to defend us and Australia!

Helen Clark states that we live in a benign area of the world, how does she think it is going to stay that way with her "stated" policies, or by the policies that she knows we "must" adopt to survive!

The average age of the Indonesian "hordes" (who love us to bits) just above us is 24yrs, what is the average age of New Zealand and Australia and how many of our new people are loyal enough to want to defend us.

Does our armed force have the capability and equipment to even stall a determined invader, let alone defend us?

Wake up and smell the roses, like it or not, we need "Georgie boy" more than he needs us, despite what the socialists tell you! :yes: John.

I dont think Aunty Helen need be worried about outside invaders too much...If she keeps on going the way she is, we gonna have one hell of a revolution right here in our own backyard.

Storm

14th June 2007, 22:32

The army is getting snazzy new dpm clothes. (I went to the presentation and all!)

Chrislost

14th June 2007, 22:34

i still think that we need to be able to defend ourselves.

and whats all this peacekeeping shit?
we cant even keep the peace in south auckland yet!
and then we bring refugees from opther 3rd world countries and dont educate them, resulting in more crap happening in our country.

ohh and muslems thats what indonesia is full of, and crazy ones at that.
even the chinese indonesians dont like the native ones and their the ones that we usually see around here, jsut wait till the really scummy ones start to some down.

NighthawkNZ

14th June 2007, 22:40

Why has there never been an HMNZS
Or is this some sort of cost-saving measure whereby the navy can recycle the crockery and stationery from the last vessel to bear that name?

mainly tradition, to honour the past vessels to rebear the name, and to honour the crew that served on these ships...

NighthawkNZ

14th June 2007, 22:42

and whats all this peacekeeping shit?

Before you can be a peace keeper you need to have peace... before that you have the peace maker

Delerium

14th June 2007, 22:45

try having a read of straight from the horses ass by lee hughs, youll be in fits of laughter but it does raise some valid points on this issue.

A military force is capable of military action should the need arise... and is capable of peace keeping duties also. A peace keeping force is not capable of military operations.

The NZDF has been flat tack for a while now... the operational tempo is quite high. Lots of people.. not just army went to timor, and guess what, they are back there now. Afghanistan has been going on for a while now too. This is all openly available information to anybody that cares for it. Words to this effect where even stated on the SAS program on tv tonight.

Still being a serving member, it isnt my place to comment on govt policy and defence decision. But I can state what is happening at the moment. A conisiderable amount of equipment upgrades are in the works at the moment.

Indiana_Jones

14th June 2007, 22:51

I just think our 'defence' force couldn't hold back anyone really. Our peace keeping work is great etc, an I have nothing but respect for the people in the forces.

I can't remember who it was (Phil goth I think), but he said when talking about us scrapping the sky hawks "Well we've had them for x amount of years and we've never needed them, so we're getting rid of them"

.........Hello, it's like saying, oh I havn't used this helmet in a while, I won't ride with it today :p

-Indy

NighthawkNZ

14th June 2007, 22:53

I can't remember who it was (Phil goth I think), but he said when talking about us scrapping the sky hawks "Well we've had them for x amount of years and we've never needed them, so we're getting rid of them"

.........Hello, it's like saying, oh I havn't used this helmet in a while, I won't ride with it today :p

too true... too true. :)

R6_kid

14th June 2007, 23:16

but you dont know the likeliness that you will crash that day... Indonesia has to get through (or go around) Australia before we need to worry.

Much research and analysis goes into government decision making (apparently!)

Wolf

14th June 2007, 23:41

Wake up and smell the roses, like it or not, we need "Georgie boy" more than he needs us, despite what the socialists tell you!
Only need the World has for "georgie-boy" is to serve as fertiliser for said roses.

I understand that after a few months of decomposition we should get a good crop so I think he should be started on that process as soon as possible.

The world has no need for monsters and GW is one of the biggest.

It's not just "socialists" that can spot a war-mongering, expansionist megalomaniac who does not value the lives of his own citizens - we Centrists can spot tyrannical despots just as easily - at both ends of the "Left/Right" spectrum.

Lets see: Invade a country, when the troops start getting slaughtered by the partisans within that country, propose sending in more to die there while also looking around the region for other countries to invade and control. And if a major natural disaster occurs back home while this is going on, don't let that distract you from the war effort and dreams of global domination.

I do not in the least agree with most of Clark's crap but I do agree with her policy on not siding with the Bush Administration. Under the National Party, it'd be our brave lads becoming cannon fodder to feed Bush's war machine - the various pro-Bush cock-suckers in the upper echelons of the National Party have made that perfectly clear.

The Labour Party is a pack of non-childbearing fuckwits who want to control every aspect of our family lives and National is a bunch of pansy soft-cocks that need to cosy-up to the School Bully to feel safe and warm - we need a decent political party that puts the needs of New Zealand - defence, economic stability etc - first. And I don't mean one that puts the needs of Winston Fecking Peters first.

I think we do need to focus our military ability on policing our EEZ. Stop and seize any vessel poaching in our waters, deport the crew and invite the boat's owners over to watch it being cut apart as scrap to defray the costs of its seizure. Teach the world to fuck with our sovereignty at their peril.

And the next terrorists we catch can be sent home in a large cardboard box cushioned by human excrement - not sent to a fucking tropical island.

oldrider

15th June 2007, 00:35

Only need the World has for "georgie-boy" is to serve as fertiliser for said roses.

I understand that after a few months of decomposition we should get a good crop so I think he should be started on that process as soon as possible.

The world has no need for monsters and GW is one of the biggest.

It's not just "socialists" that can spot a war-mongering, expansionist megalomaniac who does not value the lives of his own citizens - we Centrists can spot tyrannical despots just as easily - at both ends of the "Left/Right" spectrum.

Lets see: Invade a country, when the troops start getting slaughtered by the partisans within that country, propose sending in more to die there while also looking around the region for other countries to invade and control. And if a major natural disaster occurs back home while this is going on, don't let that distract you from the war effort and dreams of global domination.

I do not in the least agree with most of Clark's crap but I do agree with her policy on not siding with the Bush Administration. Under the National Party, it'd be our brave lads becoming cannon fodder to feed Bush's war machine - the various pro-Bush cock-suckers in the upper echelons of the National Party have made that perfectly clear.

The Labour Party is a pack of non-childbearing fuckwits who want to control every aspect of our family lives and National is a bunch of pansy soft-cocks that need to cosy-up to the School Bully to feel safe and warm - we need a decent political party that puts the needs of New Zealand - defence, economic stability etc - first. And I don't mean one that puts the needs of Winston Fecking Peters first.

I think we do need to focus our military ability on policing our EEZ. Stop and seize any vessel poaching in our waters, deport the crew and invite the boat's owners over to watch it being cut apart as scrap to defray the costs of its seizure. Teach the world to fuck with our sovereignty at their peril.

And the next terrorists we catch can be sent home in a large cardboard box cushioned by human excrement - not sent to a fucking tropical island.

I didn't say I liked George W and I didn't say I was a National supporter, I just said how much we needed the Americans support, like it or not.

As for the Indonesians being a threat, who was it that we were lining up against in East Timor, where our territorial forces were :Pokey: poking them in the eye!

Now was that a really smart thing to do when you think about it, the Indonesians were almost united about East Timor and that's the last thing we need, united Indonesians looking for a skirmish that they think they can win! John.

sAsLEX

15th June 2007, 01:56

Yip, and Iv been in for 7 years and im on 34 grand. although I changed trade so iv only got 4 years senority and im in a different service.

Sounds like you got shafted.

Not forgeting the NZ itself has possibly got oil... especially southland, stewart island and southern basin...

Umm Taranaki has a fair bit, actually in production at the mo too

mainly tradition, to honour the past vessels to rebear the name.
Hence the Upham not being allowed to be reused....

Much research and analysis goes into government decision making (apparently!)

Oh boy your are dilusional.

sAsLEX

15th June 2007, 02:01

I would like to remind people that 25 years ago to the day (my time) Argentina surrendered in the first major Naval conflict in rather a few years.

The year 1982, the year after a major review that wanted the severe downsizing of the Navy as to use Gareth's words "they never used". It is by chance the LPDs were kept to make landing a possibility, and now look at their amphibious ability! Another point was the Land Attack air role was lost with the old Ark Royal going so that meant only the ski jumping harriers in theatre.

The outcome of the Falklands was a dithering political career of Thatcher was saved and the Navy gained many supporters, it also opened the common mans eyes to what a proper Navy can achieve anywhere in the world!

and in the infamous words of my PTI

"Fail to prepare, Prepare to Fail!"

mdooher

15th June 2007, 08:16

Yeah......

Guns are old school! Don't see any new ships with 18 inchs anymore.

5 inch ERGM munitions maybe, but missiles are the new thing.

Yep dead right. Any war ship should be be for one thing...war. It neads missiles, lots of missiles they do all of the real work. But nothing say fuck off like great big scarry guns. They say to tin pot leaders like the Fiji fella "Fuck off cos we can paste your entire coastline or whatever and we can do it cheap." Shells cost a lot less than missiles and will still work well from 20 miles away

Flatcap

15th June 2007, 08:31

Much research and analysis goes into government decision making (apparently!)

Yes - Helen had a look at Fiji and decided that the military here needed to be abolished

Swoop

15th June 2007, 08:59

I would like to remind people that 25 years ago to the day (my time) Argentina surrendered in the first major Naval conflict in rather a few years.

it also opened the common mans eyes to what a proper Navy can achieve anywhere in the world!
The disgusting thing is that the light blue told the world that THEY won the war.
A couple of Vulcan raids that did ZERO damage apart from ONE bomb making a hole in the runway at Stanley(which the argies patched up each night so it could be used - then made it look like it was "still a hole" during the day so to confuse the Brits). Later in the war there were several RAF pilots seconded to the carriers.
Who took the majority of the medals and limelight? Fuc*ing light blue!

Thank goodness that lessons were well learnt from this "first modern war".

sAsLEX

15th June 2007, 09:14

Yep dead right. Any war ship should be be for one thing...war. It neads missiles, lots of missiles they do all of the real work. But nothing say fuck off like great big scarry guns. They say to tin pot leaders like the Fiji fella "Fuck off cos we can paste your entire coastline or whatever and we can do it cheap." Shells cost a lot less than missiles and will still work well from 20 miles away

Yes right on both counts NGS has been used to good effect in most modern conflicts.

The Falklands and the sister ship to our frigates HMS Anzac was lobbing rounds into Iraq in support of troops there.

Missiles are coming down in cost, hell the New Zealand chap http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/ there made one.......

Thank goodness that lessons were well learnt from this "first modern war".

And the war stopped the attrition of forces they are starting to do now again 25 years later.....

Hitcher

15th June 2007, 09:19

The disgusting thing is that the light blue told the world that THEY won the war.

If by the "light blue" you mean the RAF, they played a significantly greater role in the Falklands conflict that the scant credit you've given them here. Don't forget that Argentine A4s and Mirages had free reign over the Falklands from their bases in Argentina, and much is owed to the competence of both the British Harriers and their pilots in negating this considerable air support advantage.

sAsLEX

15th June 2007, 09:31

If by the "light blue" you mean the RAF, they played a significantly greater role in the Falklands conflict that the scant credit you've given them here. Don't forget that Argentine A4s and Mirages had free reign over the Falklands from their bases in Argentina, and much is owed to the competence of both the British Harriers and their pilots in negating this considerable air support advantage.

This is true. The Harriers kept the Mirages out of the conflict for the majority of the time, due to the AIM 9? missile which outclassed the other craft. Where were they based though? And how well did the long range assets do?

One interesting note is that due to having ex RN Type 42s the Argies knew to come in low against them as the defences were useless against a low flying target, they also forgot to use short fuses as most of the weapons did not have time to arm from that height.

Another fact was that radar at that time could not pick the planes up from the background land that they came across which lead to the advent of Moving Target Indication and doppler and a bunch of other radar techniques.

The list of lessons learnt in that war are long and numerous. And Hitcher might need to infract himself for keeping this thread off topic........

Chrislost

15th June 2007, 09:57

Much research and analysis goes into government decision making (apparently!)

that research at the bottom of a wine bottle?
arr need more money lets sell ****** and make a law banning #####
?

NighthawkNZ

15th June 2007, 10:41

Another fact was that radar at that time could not pick the planes up from the background land that they came across which lead to the advent of Moving Target Indication and doppler and a bunch of other radar techniques...

It is still difficult to do... thats one of the other reasons IFF is used. (beingg an ex navy RP or Radar fella)

Flying under the radar is still possible today till you get on the horizon about 13 Nautical miles, from there you can easily lauch a missle... its called the curviture of the earth amd line of sight....

By the time you pick up a fast moving object at that range (either a missile or aircraft... you only have a matter of seconds to re-act

Decide from other intel if its a missile or aircraft, friend or foe, if missle use chaff, and or electronic jamming which modern missiles will just lock onto and travel done the jamming signal anyhow... (but you have to know what type of missile it is... fly by wire, heat, blah blah blah or close in anti air to try and shoot it out which is like hitting a atom in the greater universe, the new (well old) Phalax which is to designed to put up a wall of lead... something like 3000 rounds a minute. Turn the ship into the missile making a smaller target. and less heat for the missile to detect... blah blah blah

If an air craft, it opens up another kettle, bigger slower moving target than a missile and means anti air defences have a better chance of doing there job. However fighters to are out gunned there advantage is to be low, fast in and out... They do prefer to shot from over the horizon... out of direct sight from the ship... But

as soon as the lock on to the ship for a firing solution... the Electronic Warfare guys should have them and the ship should know they are there and prepare...

This is of course all in theory if every one does there job correctly and well many other factors also come in to play...

Swoop

15th June 2007, 10:54

If by the "light blue" you mean the RAF, they played a significantly greater role in the Falklands conflict that the scant credit you've given them here.
In combat? = No.
Transport = yes.
Bombing? A long range farce conducted at great expence for nil results. When this approach failed, they armed the Vulcan with SHRIKE missiles and attempted to attack with those. Somone on the ground, wearing an Argentinian uniform, simply switched the radar off, so that idea didn't work. These were the missiles which were the cause of international concern when the Vulcan diverted to South America (Brasil?).

Don't forget that Argentine A4s and Mirages had free reign over the Falklands from their bases in Argentina, and much is owed to the competence of both the British Harriers and their pilots in negating this considerable air support advantage.
True, but who were flying the Sea Harriers? Royal Navy Pilots - NOT RAF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Air_Arm There is a difference. Not that the general public appreciate this.

As stated, there were several RAF pilots who arrived on the Atlantic Conveyor, after most (but not all) of the air combat. Their primary role was air-to-mud.

This is true. The Harriers kept the Mirages out of the conflict for the majority of the time, due to the AIM 9? missile which outclassed the other craft.
AIM 9L.
They arrived just in time!
The endurance of the Mirage was insufficient and relied on drop-tanks to take the fight over East Falkland and beyond. Once they had jettisoned all of the tanks, they were not seen in the conflict until the invasion commenced.
One Mirage was shot down by their own forces as it attempted to land at Stanley!

One interesting note is that due to having ex RN Type 42s the Argies knew to come in low against them as the defences were useless against a low flying target.
And the "Type 64" was invented. A 22 + 42 "combo" that could cope with both threats.

mark247

15th June 2007, 11:39

Delerium

15th June 2007, 12:29

Sounds like you got shafted.

Umm Taranaki has a fair bit, actually in production at the mo too

Hence the Upham not being allowed to be reused....

Oh boy your are dilusional.

Different pay scales for different services. 3 people posted to wellington from each service at equivalent ranks and they will all be getting paid differently. Im at the right pay level for my seniority. Everybody else that graduated from my senior trade training is on the same pay. That training has taken 3 years for my current trade including on job training.

sAsLEX

15th June 2007, 19:28

And the "Type 64" was invented. A 22 + 42 "combo" that could cope with both threats.

Worked fine until the dabber turned the ship in front of the guy with the weapons.........silly dabbers.

It is still difficult to do... thats one of the other reasons IFF is used. (being an ex navy RP or Radar fella)

Flying under the radar is still possible today till you get on the horizon about 13 Nautical miles, from there you can easily lauch a missle... its called the curviture of the earth amd line of sight....

By the time you pick up a fast moving object at that range (either a missile or aircraft... you only have a matter of seconds to re-act

Decide from other intel if its a missile or aircraft, friend or foe, if missle use chaff, and or electronic jamming which modern missiles will just lock onto and travel done the jamming signal anyhow... (but you have to know what type of missile it is... fly by wire, heat, blah blah blah or close in anti air to try and shoot it out which is like hitting a atom in the greater universe, the new (well old) Phalax which is to designed to put up a wall of lead... something like 3000 rounds a minute. Turn the ship into the missile making a smaller target. and less heat for the missile to detect... blah blah blah

as soon as the lock on to the ship for a firing solution... the Electronic Warfare guys should have them and the ship should know they are there and prepare...

This is of course all in theory if every one does there job correctly and well many other factors also come in to play...

Ground Wave and surface ducting can create radar ranges far exceeding the horizon actually, but of course that depends on the environmental at the time. This beats line of sight and curvature problems.

The used to play a game on the bridge
"I spy with my little eye some thing beginning with......... E!"

Only 4 seconds from detection to impact nothing you could do!

The best anti missile trick I have heard of is blinking. Two targets, normally planes fly towards the threat and pulse their radars so the missile flys between them..... requires balls of steel I would say!

NighthawkNZ

15th June 2007, 19:59

Ground Wave and surface ducting can create radar ranges far exceeding the horizon actually, but of course that depends on the environmental at the time. This beats line of sight and curvature problems.

yes and no... its not that accurate... and you get a lot of surface noise (similar to sea clutter (when you get a radar return from wave tops in highish seas) and been know to get false contacts as the beam passes through a variety of atmosphere contidions etc

Commanly called Super-refraction. "Super-refractive conditions can extend radar coverage up to 50% above normal operational coverage" but it does depend on radar strength, frequency, moisture and a variety of other contions. You could get super-refraction contions on the port side, sub refraction ahead, trapping to the starboard and normal contions to the rear... (in theory) I doubt that would ever happen tho.
errr read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar (for those that are interested)

Swoop

15th June 2007, 20:22

.........silly dabbers.
:rofl:
Should have left the job to the WAFU's!

Hitcher

15th June 2007, 20:25

Are we back on topic yet?

Wolf

15th June 2007, 20:40

Are we back on topic yet?
We'll get there when we get there!

NighthawkNZ

15th June 2007, 20:42

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

Wolf

15th June 2007, 22:14

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

***SCREEEEEEEEEEEEECH***

Get out and WALK!

NighthawkNZ

15th June 2007, 22:23

***SCREEEEEEEEEEEEECH***

Get out and WALK!

:lol: :rofl:

R6_kid

19th June 2007, 17:29

I dont understand how our dumbass PM doesnt think we can afford to keep some very effect A-4k Skyhawks in the air ( basically kept our military relationship with aussie going ) , but we can afford some very expensive to buy / maintain NH90 helicopters ( Hueys could do the job just fine ) and some big fat ship...

Because not having the A-4K's is saving nearly a billion dollars over 10 years... the UH-1H, while not being obsolete is now getting hard to source parts for... bell no longer supplies parts or engines for them so the only option is second hand... and one NH-90 does the job of two UH-1H's, can be better armed, has better avionics, better range, etc etc (it was a good idea to get them).

The big fat ship was also a good idea.

The smart thing to do which should have been done in 2001 was scrap the skyhawks, keep the Aermacchis and only buy 14 F-16's (rather than 28) which would be 4 two seaters for conversion training, and ten single seaters (or two seaters) for operational use. Also getting half the amount of LAVIII's as they bought as we didnt need anywhere near as many as they bought, and there was the option of upgrading the M113's to A3 spec such as the US Army uses then we could still transort them in the Hercules.

Delerium

19th June 2007, 17:53

Got any idea how mych the skyhawks and macchis are costing us to stay in storage?

How many Nh-90's are we getting, its 6 or 8, I cant remember which, but it doesnt seem a lot...

NighthawkNZ

19th June 2007, 17:53

Also getting half the amount of LAVIII's as they bought as we didnt need anywhere near as many as they bought

Mow many LAVIII's did we end up getting??

Delerium

19th June 2007, 17:54

105 if i recall correctly

NighthawkNZ

19th June 2007, 17:55

105 if i recall correctly

ferk... that many... we just about don't have enough troops to utilise them all... :lol:

Delerium

19th June 2007, 17:58

2 under strength battalions. ( I think, 2 under strength something.. im sure its a battalion.. dont know much on army structure) The lav's do match up with the NH90's nicely... I remember being told they carry the same number of troops. I dont know how much truth is in that statement.

SPman

19th June 2007, 18:02

ferk... that many... we just about don't have enough troops to utilise them all... :lol:Sure we have - half them are broken down at any one time - useless fucking things that they are.......:innocent:

Delerium

19th June 2007, 18:04

Where did you get that information? I dont know much about them but Im curious to know where you found that out.

SARGE

19th June 2007, 18:47

the OLD HMS CANTERBURY @ PAHIA

damn shame to see a glorious old girl like this scuttled as a recreational dive reef

Mrs. SARGE's dad served on her in her heyday and i almost shed a tear over seeing her in this shape

mark247

19th June 2007, 18:53

Because not having the A-4K's is saving nearly a billion dollars over 10 years... the UH-1H, while not being obsolete is now getting hard to source parts for... bell no longer supplies parts or engines for them so the only option is second hand... and one NH-90 does the job of two UH-1H's, can be better armed, has better avionics, better range, etc etc (it was a good idea to get them).

The big fat ship was also a good idea.

The smart thing to do which should have been done in 2001 was scrap the skyhawks, keep the Aermacchis and only buy 14 F-16's (rather than 28) which would be 4 two seaters for conversion training, and ten single seaters (or two seaters) for operational use. Also getting half the amount of LAVIII's as they bought as we didnt need anywhere near as many as they bought, and there was the option of upgrading the M113's to A3 spec such as the US Army uses then we could still transort them in the Hercules.

For what New Zealand needed ( An all rounder ), the Skyhawks were better than the F16. I believe that personally, and my brother ( flew the skyhawks and knows shit loads about jets )

SARGE

19th June 2007, 18:54

gas ax vandals

these pix were taken at Pihia this past weekend by the way

NighthawkNZ

19th June 2007, 19:04

Mrs. SARGE's dad served on her in her heyday and i almost shed a tear over seeing her in this shape

I served on as well.. :(

as well as Waikato, Tui, and Wellington all reefs now... :bye:

am unsure of F104 HMNZS Southland served on her as well... :doh:

Delerium

19th June 2007, 20:09

Had a similar feeling walking into a hangar full of skyhawks and macchis. Iv still got footage of the final skyhawk flight.

R6_kid

20th June 2007, 17:22

For what New Zealand needed ( An all rounder ), the Skyhawks were better than the F16. I believe that personally, and my brother ( flew the skyhawks and knows shit loads about jets )

Our skyhawks got the same avionics suite as the USAF F-16's were running when they got upgraded to Kahu spec. They were more maneuverable at low speed, and also suited anti-ship more than the F-16... the F-16 is faster and more suited to modern air combat than our A-4K's, in saying that though we used to give the F-18's in aussie a good run for their money in dog fights... but dogfighting is a rare occurence in modern air combat.

The best fighter aircraft for NZ would be a new generation Harrier such as the GR7, but the F-35 would be overkill and probably be nothing like what we need. Also given the purchase of the MRV a Harrier is almost certainly suited to deck operations, even if there are only two on ship. It would also lead to the possible investment of a heli/vstol carrier to supplement it as they too are also very good troop deploy/supply ship - but i might just be dreaming!

R6_kid

20th June 2007, 17:24

Had a similar feeling walking into a hangar full of skyhawks and macchis. Iv still got footage of the final skyhawk flight.

Skyhawks and Macchis? Must have been a fair while ago... the macchis are at Ohakea and still fly on an almost daily basis, just to keep them air worthy. The skyhawks are 'mothballed' at Blenheim awaiting confirmation of purchase. I would love to be the guy keeping the macchis going... i could tell he was enjoying it, he certainly wasn't taking it easy!

mark247

20th June 2007, 17:31

Iv still got footage of the final skyhawk flight.

Do you mean the final skyhawk flight ever? with just the one flying?
If so, that was my brother flying :Punk: He was the pilot which kept one flying when they were trying to sell them all, kinda as a demo.

YLWDUC

20th June 2007, 17:52

The lav's do match up with the NH90's nicely... I remember being told they carry the same number of troops. I dont know how much truth is in that statement.

The NH90's can carry up to 20 troops, the LAV's only 7. A platoon of LAV cavalry is somewhere between 24 and 28 soldiers

Delerium

20th June 2007, 21:35

Well that proves that theory wrong. Is that just troops or troops with FSMO?

Yeah the final solo flight, woodbourne was pretty much empty and all the people were on the tarmac.

Sorry, it was on seperate occasions... iv seen a hanger of macchis many moons ago now... and iv walked into the skyhawk storage hanger several times.

sAsLEX

21st June 2007, 02:37

NighthawkNZ

21st June 2007, 07:23

It would also lead to the possible investment of a heli/vstol carrier to supplement it as they too are also very good troop deploy/supply ship - but i might just be dreaming!

Tui anyone?

I highly highly doubt we will have in the near future anything like that.

Well the Canterbury can carry upto 250 troops and LAV's (not sure of the number there), 3 helio, it has the capability of landing the troops and gear via air, and or landing craft, if no port is available...

Also the MRV in a combat zone would not work alone, so it would have the support of the frigates and there helio's as well.

The Navy has wanted and needed a vessle like the new HMNZS Canterbury for years now (even back when I was servering) am I for one am glad to see the civi's in the government and aunty helen finally said yes... We no longer have to rely on the Aussies or anyone else to move troops and gear to where its needed.

Tui anyone?
here not the tui moment you were expecting tho... :( another great ship a reef