Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 63541	2005-11-13 09:10:00	Opinion on the state of NZ military/disarmed force	JSF_enthusiast (8536)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
404064	2005-11-16 20:01:00	If you wanted to engage in guerilla warfare against an invading force you would soon be a dead monkey. Time for another musical interlude : Midnight Oil : "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"	andrew93 (249)
404065	2005-11-17 00:12:00	A most stimulating discussion and very enjoyable. I'm with Metla. :D Lets consider the current situation. There is no New Zealand Defence Force. Instead we have an Army, a Navy, and an Airforce. All separate and competing with each other. Thats rubbish IMHO for such a small country. There was a Defence Report a few years ago which proposed a combined Defence Force with everyone cross-training in all three disciplines. Of course there would still need to be specialisation. But essentially we'd have a sort of Marines/SAS military unit. Forget tanks, F16s, and frigates. Too single purpose and expensive. What we need is a well trained, versatile, and mobile set of chaps and chapesses able to wreck mayhem anywhere around the globe. Unhappily the military establishment had a conniption fit over the Report and it died at birth. :(	Winston001 (3612)
404066	2005-11-17 01:35:00	I say,what a good idea,they could hide behind there bikes as they sally forth.	Cicero (40)
404067	2005-11-17 02:43:00	I say,what a good idea,they could hide behind their bikes as they sally forth. Well, the Japanese overan the Malayan Penninsula on their bicycles Cic :D I'm all for a small compact highly trained combined defence force, none of this silly rotation of defence chiefs between the competing arms, as Winston says we are far too small for such antiquated luxury. It should have been done years ago. Mind you, if the Treasury have their way, and tax cuts are made, we'd have to ensure all service personnel are well trained in unarmed combat!	Terry Porritt (14)
404068	2005-11-17 02:49:00	The Japs had a never surrender attitude . Seems to serve people well when at war . That is unless you go poke a stick in the eye of a super power and they drop a super weapon on your city . . . . . .	Metla (12)
404069	2005-11-17 03:53:00	Yeah we should be organised like the American Marines... One fighting force but with the capabilities of all 3 services. Air force=attack choppers/transport choppers (can land them in forest clearings re-arm/re-fuel/fix,repair,thus hidden with camo. nets from enemy, can carry on the fight along time after the invasion.) Navy=assult craft/landing craft/torpedo boats/mine layers (can be hidden in our many waterways/rivers in NZ and carry on the fight.) Army=mobile attack ground force (can ambush,sniper,hit and run,guerrilla warfare ect and hide vech. in forest,etc.) Heck I would rather NZ become another state of Aussie then for us to be invaded by someone we dont wont. :D At least the Aussies care about their country and thats why they have a better defence force then us. Pity we dont seem to have that same way in NZ,.......	memphis (2869)
404070	2005-11-17 03:54:00	Well, the Japanese overan the Malayan Penninsula on their bicycles Cic :D I'm all for a small compact highly trained combined defence force, none of this silly rotation of defence chiefs between the competing arms, as Winston says we are far too small for such antiquated luxury. It should have been done years ago. Mind you, if the Treasury have their way, and tax cuts are made, we'd have to ensure all service personnel are well trained in unarmed combat! I am all for the small deadly force idea too Ter,just a question of what kit would be best. Fear not T,your lot will not permit business to prosper by letting them keep a decent sum of the money they have earned.	Cicero (40)
404071	2005-11-17 20:23:00	Well it appears that everyone else has had their say so I should really have mine since I started this topic . The Labour defence policy is to maintain an army based around mechanised infantry . In other words infantry that is well armed and supported that can move rapidly through the use of vehicles in our case the LAV 3 and the Pinzgauer . In that statement however you would have noticed something the word "supported" in my opinion that’s where the problems come in . Back in the 1970s when the NZ military was its peak the army receive mobile artillery support from the scorpion and air support from the sky hawk . The problem is we lost the sky hawks in 2001 and the scorpion in 1998 . Nothing has been done to replace them therefore our troops miss the all important "support" . Modern conflict fought by western countries is fought around the idea of "blitzkrieg", the German tactics of World War Two . Those of you who know anything about history "blitzkrieg" relies on having air do mince as well as strong air support neither of which New Zealand has therefore we can not fight the tactics properly . Now some of you are probably thinking OK we just get the US and Britain etc to provide us with close air support and the air do mince that we need . However there are some problems the British air force is cutting back numbers and their force is only going to be designed to give air support and artillery support to themselves . Also they don't enjoy having to give New Zealand equipment they should have anyway . When New Zealand went into Bosnia the British were forced by the Americans to give us air cover in the form of surface to air missile trucks . . . the British were furious . It was believed that one British soldier said "don't bother coming you selfish pigs" . This shows the horrible reputation we inherit with our military slackness . New Zealand did fix the specific problem above by purchasing the mistral system off the French . The problem of air support still remains though with New Zealand having no aircraft designed to give it . Also we really on our allies for reconnaissance as well . There is however a New Zealand made weapon that can fix the problem the "Snark" made by TGR here is a link . tgrhelicorp . com/ (http://" target="_blank">www . tgrhelicorp . com/ (http:) The other alternatives are the F-16 and the harrier . The F-16s were going to cost us between 500-700 million which funny enough is the same cost as the LAVs yet they offer greater strategic benefit . In terms of self propelled artillery the American 'Patton' is very good and there are also European alternatives . The other thing I would like to mention is 'project protector' the second worst military decision made by this government after the F-16 cancellation/sky hawk retirement . Oh and with the sky hawks they were never designed for air combat they were designed to give air support I thought I would just raise that point . Ok project protector, the main problem I actually have was the chosen contractor . . . they choose to go local except the company that was chosen was one of the worst military ship building reputations there is . Basically it should have gone to one of the others, there was even one which could offered to make us stealth corvettes in replace of those rather pathetic off-shore patrol boats . Which brings up my next point how are two off-shore patrol boats went to replace a frigate? How some of you are thinking the multi-role vessel is replacing the frigate but NO that’s replacing the Charles up ham, remember that ship, the faulty one that could have been fixed for $40 mil yet the labour government insisted on a $250 mil ship that from examination by experts could be even more faulty . There is also the labour government trying to replace 5 inshore patrol boats with 4 . This is typical of many governments however believing that fewer ships can do the same job fact of there matter is, they can't . The idea of project protector was good; it’s just a pity that labour insists on buying the navy crap . The frigates in the RNZAF are armed with weapons from the 70s, yet Australia offered us the opportunity to upgrade our ANZAC frigates with threes, it appears that the labour government has declined the offer . Basically everything Australia is doing to theirs needs to be done to ours . . . new anti-air missiles, actually get anti-shipping missile, new anti-sub torpedoes, upgrade electronic warfare suite . The labour government’s policy is to maintain naval combat capability and anyone can see they are clearly not . Everyone thinks the sea sprite are good . . . I personally thin they are pathetic . The RNZN treats many of us fools trying to tell us the maverick is a anti-shipping missile its not . . . the reason we are using them is because the labour government cancelled the order for the penguin missile that Australia uses and believes the maverick taken straight off the sky hawks weapon list will do the job . . . NH-90 I saw an article in the listener saying that the NH-90 was the wrong choice . *** so now the government and New Zealand’s defence critics are complete idiots . The NH-90 is the best transport helicopter in the world in my opinion . Some of you may think it is the Blackhawk but that’s only due to movies . The Blackhawk has the worst crash rate of almost any helicopter in the world and the New Zealand public doesn't like to see things crashing . . . The government is also planning life extensions for C-130 and P-3 aircraft . P-3 it’s alright because we have to wait a bit for American P-8 to finish to development . The C-130H life extensions are stupid especially due to national having set money aside to buy New planes I wish to know where that money went as well as the money for the F-16s . New Zeeland should have gone an invested in the European 'A-400M' project and actually got a replacement and expand the fleet after all its being put under a lot of pressure . Most of you realise that all this stuff is damn expensive and all but if you do this over 10 years and not rush into it could cost around $800 mil a year and by the end it we will be all good and for those surrender monkeys out there I think you are the most ignorant selfish bastards in existence . and those of you who call me a War Mongerer, I call myself prepared because who in 1928 thought that in just over 10 years time the biggest conflict in human history would occur . A modern war could be over in a few days and that leaves you no time to prepare and in war every bit counts .	JSF_enthusiast (8536)
404072	2005-11-17 20:31:00	So, we should build up a massive army for a war that would be over in a few days? Right, they would be halfway to the Airport and it would be over, And no matter how much we spent on building up our defences we could never be anything more then able to contribute what we are able, Do you have any idea how tiny this country is? If the need comes then industry can go into war mode, as can the people and the defence forces, But spending billions on something that will never cut it is bollucks. As for the Brit who called us selfish pigs, who cares?, Should have shot him if anyone cared.	Metla (12)
404073	2005-11-17 20:48:00	Yes Met is right again,we should stick to the pitch forks.	Cicero (40)
1 2 3 4 5 6