Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 61731	2005-09-14 23:07:00	Not sure if this will influence your decision ?	KiwiTT_NZ (233)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
388506	2005-09-16 02:50:00	In terms of defence, we should structure our armed forces in a way that we can help our "friends" and support UN operations we are called upon.	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
388507	2005-09-16 04:50:00	...You can't support a combat aircaft off a small "commando carrier" platform, and to even try to do so in a serious conflict would see the aircraft, commandos, ship and its crew disappear in one incandescent flash that only a patriot missile battery could avoid.......... That is debateable, but the main point is f you want to transport aircraft and men and equipment from New Zealand complete with a defensive air capability then a light form of carrier is required. The Harriers proved themselves against far faster planes in ther Falklands conflict. The Brits used HMS Hermes and Invincible, 'somewhat more' than a commando transport boat. The frigates were purchased with only the Gatling and 4" inch gun for defence in order to reduce costs, they are nowhere near to the specifications of the Aussie vessels, there are no anti-missile missile systems. The Gatling gun barrels last all of two minutes before needing to be replaced, they are a last line of defence system which is being used as our first line of defence.	Terry Porritt (14)
388508	2005-09-16 05:50:00	The NZ nazac frigates to carry Sm-1 surface to air missiles designed to chout down fourth generation fighter aircraft. However the sm-1 is dated and this shown by a large numberof countries including Australia replacing their sm-1s woit hthe new sm-2 (Australia is also getting sm-3s for its anti-air warfare destroyers). The best thing for our navy now would be for the 2 anzac frigates to join in the Australian upgrading project, they would therefore get: new missile adn torpedos for seasprite, anti-shipping cruise missiles (harpoon2), sm-2 surface to air missiles and a new electronic warfare system designed to 'jam' cruise missiles before you even see them. These sorts of things were mentioned in the defence beyond 2000 review but up till now have been ignored. Maintaining skyhawks beyond 2000 was going to be stupid, in warfare they would be absolute cannon fudder (even with upgrading) if they went up aginst threat fighters such as mig29s. The f-16s would have been nice but due to Helens prejudice (she was there when the skyhawks arrived in port with her communist mates of the time) we lost them. Now the best thing for us to do would be to go for UCAVS (unmanned combat air vehicles) they are the future of air warfare. Although intential set up costs will be rather large the long term costs will be much lower also we will be getting a ahead start on most of our allies. Possible ucavs we could buy are both in development at the moment the european nEUROn and the American X-45C. We could also look at attack helis such as the US marines super cobra for close air support (precision strike) for the army. Remember appaches and Eurcopter tigers (what Australia has) are very hard to deploy with out hellciopter carriers or large transport planes such as the C-17 or the famous antonov 124. Just my views....	JSF_enthusiast (8536)
388509	2005-09-16 06:32:00	Right, good one JSF, the frigates do have missiles, I was over 10-12 years out of date, and thinking back to when I was involved is cost estimating integration of Raytheon systems into the frigates. Should've Googled :)	Terry Porritt (14)
388510	2005-09-16 07:45:00	I respect the opinions expressed here. But the trend for conscience votes in parliament is a concern. You say Terry that: "In all cases though AFAIK, these social engineering laws are passed on conscience votes in Parliament, and so could be taken to represent the will of the majority of the population." Maybe so, sometimes, but these days under MMP & 60 list MP's who dont represent anyone, I doubt that the vote is the will of the majority of the population. More likely their personal opinion decides important legislation, sometimes with a slender majority. However, that is MMP, and I guess we are stuck with it.	Bazza (407)
1 2