air forces without a fighter jet to its name.

[jango]

I am aware that at this time that countrys such as New Zealand and Ireland have no jet fighters in their air force and air corp. The reason being that they cannot afford them.

But since 911 any country without fighters are leaving their airspaces open to attacks at anytime without the ability to react. And there was a incident in new zealand involving a stolen plane flying around Auckland i think it was a couple of years ago.

Is it not time that these countries to start to look at getting fighter to defence their airspaces and could not countries like america look at at least loading are leasing a dozen fighter to help them in this issue?

God knows that the U.S has hundreds of spare fighters sitting around so why not give a few to countries who need them and can't afford them and who work along side Nato forces?

[KillerBD]

^Its not just a problem of getting them fighter jets, they also have to take care of them and pay for the fuel they use. This all gets very expensive.

Not to mention I think if their was a major problem the British Air Force could protect Ireland, and the Australian Air Force could protect New Zeland.

[sun_tzu]

I am aware that at this time that countrys such as New Zealand and Ireland have no jet fighters in their air force and air corp. The reason being that they cannot afford them.

But since 911 any country without fighters are leaving their airspaces open to attacks at anytime without the ability to react. And there was a incident in new zealand involving a stolen plane flying around Auckland i think it was a couple of years ago.

Is it not time that these countries to start to look at getting fighter to defence their airspaces and could not countries like america look at at least loading are leasing a dozen fighter to help them in this issue?

God knows that the U.S has hundreds of spare fighters sitting around so why not give a few to countries who need them and can't afford them and who work along side Nato forces?



I think it would be more reasonable for these countries to tax their population so that they can afford jet fighters. In addition, the taxes will help pay for the maintenance personnel, spare parts, pilot training and flight hours. Training and logistical support are a vital part of having fighter jets.

[jango]

^Its not just a problem of getting them fighter jets, they also have to take care of them and pay for the fuel they use. This all gets very expensive.

Not to mention I think if their was a major problem the British Air Force could protect Ireland, and the Australian Air Force could protect New Zeland.i am aware of all these issues but why should britain and australia have to take on the responsability and cost of defencing other countries airspaces. Are there any agreements to allow the RAF and RAAF free flying in these countries airspaces and the ability to operate out of the airfield then? That is my question to you.

[Limeyfellow]

About the only AA capability the Irish have is some AA batteries they bought from the Netherlands. Northern Ireland is considerably more protected with a number of RAF stations present. Though they been bitching in the Republic for years about the need to buy some fighters, they really nothing more than a search and rescue and a little bit of radar operations thrown in setup.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

i am aware of all these issues but why should britain and australia have to take on the responsability and cost of defencing other countries airspaces.

It's because it's what we do.

[Ghelp]

The Phillipines doesn't have fighters either I think.

[Knez Eru]

The Slovenians pay the Italians for air defense, so they don't have any jets.

[Ed the bumbling fool]

When I mentioned it in the other thread i wasn't trying to dig at the kiwis for putting there jets away without any economy of scale it is a large burden for the smaller nations. Better to provide a decent infantry battalion on peace keeping than try to run jets which would be below the standard friendly neighbors can provide. Most cost effective method would be to pool defence resources as a whole and keep the quality of what you provide up. Any body who wants to doubt the quality of NZ army can try to find a German paratrooper and ask them.

[lifetimetd]

Estonia dosnt have much of an airforce either. Just a couple of helicopters and small planes for border security/search and rescue. Im pretty sure NATO protects Estonian airspace.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Yet another aussie whinging about NZ. You guys have been hanging around the poms too long.




http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=65735&highlight=Zealand+force


^^^^Already done to death but lets break out the crayons for jango and co anyway.




I am aware that at this time that countrys such as New Zealand and Ireland have no jet fighters in their air force and air corp. The reason being that they cannot afford them.

Here we have the first of your assumptions. NZ can afford combat aircraft. It just chooses not too. Such is our democratic perogative.

Don't like it?

Suck's to be you then, eh?


But since 911 any country without fighters are leaving their airspaces open to attacks at anytime without the ability to react. And there was a incident in new zealand involving a stolen plane flying around Auckland i think it was a couple of years ago.

Yep, a Cessna 172.

Flying low around the CBD, I could just see an F-16/18 'surgically' shooting it down with AIM-9, AMRAAM, 20mm with all those buildings full of civies around.:roll:


Is it not time that these countries to start to look at getting fighter to defence their airspaces

No.

Where are RAAF F-18's based?

What are their response times?

If a 747 out of Kingsford Smith gets hijacked and heads toward the Sydney opera house tonight is there going to be an F-18 on CAP ready to down it?

No?

Why not?
Even with what Australia has right now they can't possibly stop a 9/11 scenario most of the time let alone all of the time.

You go ahead and sort your own **** out before bother anyone else.


am aware of all these issues but why should britain and australia have to take on the responsability and cost of defencing other countries airspaces.

Who says you do?



Are there any agreements to allow the RAF and RAAF free flying in these countries airspaces and the ability to operate out of the airfield then? That is my question to you.

Sure there are.

You just have to ask real nice like, what with us being a sovereign country and all.


and the Australian Air Force could protect New Zeland

From who? Happy feet and rest of the penguin hordes?rofl

[velvet-cream]

i am aware of all these issues but why should britain and australia have to take on the responsability and cost of defencing other countries airspaces. Are there any agreements to allow the RAF and RAAF free flying in these countries airspaces and the ability to operate out of the airfield then? That is my question to you.

From what I can recall when NZ still had their A4s, I thought they were based in Australia anyway? So it wouldn't have really made a difference in terms of "shooting down" hijacked aircraft (the concept of that is quite beyond me anyway).

And yeah, if a terrorist hijacked an aircraft as it was taking off from kingsford smith airport, it would only take a couple of minutes to reach the sydney CBD. The F/A-18 in Wiliamstown won't have a chance of reaching them in time.

And even if the RAAF decided to fly into NZ airspace without permission, what can NZ do about it? :)

[Ed the bumbling fool]

I wasn't winging I personally believe all conflicts should be sorted out in a rugby stadium anyway so I cant really bag the Kiwis.

[DanteXavier]

Well, airforces without fighter jets...

Jamaica doesn't have any. Then again, we really don't even have a full fledged air force. Trinidad and Tobago, barbados, and I think even the Dominican Republic lack them to. You'd figure that Trinidad and Tobago and the Dom. Republic at least, with their size, would have a couple by now...

[Ordie]

Costa Rica does not have a fighter.

Wait a minute they don't have a military.....what a concept!!!

[Calanen]

Where are RAAF F-18's based?

What are their response times?

If a 747 out of Kingsford Smith gets hijacked and heads toward the Sydney opera house tonight is there going to be an F-18 on CAP ready to down it?

No?

Why not?
Even with what Australia has right now they can't possibly stop a 9/11 scenario most of the time let alone all of the time.

Kingsford Smith is maybe 15ks south of the CBD. Its not realistic to think that anyone anywhere could stop a jumbo that quickly, it would be over the CBD in minutes if taken from Kingsford Smith. I don't think that's a fair assessment of Australia's air defence system.

I am Australian, and I don't really care what NZ has for a defence force, or whether they have one at all. The fact is that if the proverbial hits the fan, we are not going to let NZ become an outpost for some invading force, and thats for our benefit not for theres.

[Ordie]

Fiji,Tonga, and Samoa do not have fighters. I guess New Zealand can afford to do the same.

FYI, New Zealand has a sizable airline with the latest aircraft including the Boeing 777.

[jerka71_1]

Shooting down civilian airliners(even after 9/11) is no countrys main objective for having an air force. If an objective at all?

To actually take that deciscion and make it happen in time before the situation already passed would be a political/military nightmare.

It should be interesting to know what ROE.s/procedures the fighters scrambled on 9/11 had.

[LordWilliam]

Thats true. Costa Rica has no armament at all.
And Dominican Republic does have armament.
If I'm not mistaken it has som AT-56 and AT-33 ShootingStar that Mexico sold to them like a decade ago.

[Kaapeli]

I think modern SAM systems can provide a more affordable and just as effective air defence for a small nation.
A small fighter force would be swept from the sky or pinned to the ground by the much stronger attacker anyway. SAM systems are more difficult to locate and destroy and are not tied to vulnerable airfields.

[Chris]

anyone ever realized that there had never been something like on 911 again, and the security on the airports gets better and better?. In my opinion, you dont need fighter planes as a small country, but if possible... get them

[perdurabo]

Ireland could easily afford fighter jets if the government really wanted some. Last year we had a surplus of 3 billion euros and over the next 7 years the government will spend 250 million euros of the tax payers money on infrastructure and social development. If it comes down to it, the average person would rather see an extra 100 euros devoted to their state pension by the government rather than expensive fighter jets.
I myself feel this is a farce and a cop out to Irish neutrality by not meeting it's defence committments. I'm sure if New Zealand really wanted jet's like Ireland they could afford to purchase them.
if you get jets, hire some Poles to fly them p-)

[jerka71_1]

I think modern SAM systems can provide a more affordable and just as effective air defence for a small nation.
A small fighter force would be swept from the sky or pinned to the ground by the much stronger attacker anyway. SAM systems are more difficult to locate and destroy and are not tied to vulnerable airfields.

Affordable as in cheaper - YES.
As effective - NO

And wasn´t the issue about the capability to meet a 9/11 scenario not a full scale attack.

[Kaapeli]

It's true that 9/11-type attacks and intercepting unauthorized airtraffic are a liability with solely ground based air defences but that problem could be solved with just a handfull (1-3 per every major airfield) of cheap trainers equipped with sidewinders.

But for a cost effective air defence I consider a well deployed grid of modern SAMs superior to a handfull of fighter aircraft you'd get for the same amount of money.

[DanteXavier]

Thats true. Costa Rica has no armament at all.
And Dominican Republic does have armament.
If I'm not mistaken it has som AT-56 and AT-33 ShootingStar that Mexico sold to them like a decade ago.

Yeah, i guess those would count.

[jerka71_1]

It's true that 9/11-type attacks and intercepting unauthorized airtraffic are a liability with solely ground based air defences but that problem could be solved with just a handfull (1-3 per every major airfield) of cheap trainers equipped with sidewinders.

But for a cost effective air defence I consider a well deployed grid of modern SAMs superior to a handfull of fighter aircraft you'd get for the same amount of money.

What system did you have in mind?

First by limiting yourself to SAMs you invite your enemy to fight inside your own nations borders.

Take New Zealand as was discussed in this thread. It is a bit smaller than Finland (sea territory excluded) but far more stretched out. That´s a lot of SAMs...

It takes a lot of manpower to have that amount of systems on alert compared to say a two-ship of fighters in a dry hangar!p-)

[Kaapeli]

What system did you have in mind?

Well for example the Russian S-300 series has ~200km range. It can easily cover any major population centers.
And then of course short range missiles for low flying targets.


First by limiting yourself to SAMs you invite your enemy to fight inside your own nations borders.

A lot of good did fighters do Serbia and Iraq. Each and every time they got up they were shot down ****to. The SAMs were much more effective in disrupting enemy air operations.


Take New Zealand as was discussed in this thread. It is a bit smaller than Finland (sea territory excluded) but far more stretched out. That´s a lot of SAMs...

Well not really. You don't have to have 100% cover and most systems are mobile. What suicide terrorist would want to crash into a jungle. Or a hostile nation air assault.


It takes a lot of manpower to have that amount of systems on alert compared to say a two-ship of fighters in a dry hangar!p-)

True. But pilots aren't cheap either and only a handfull are ready for action at any given time unless it's a wartime, when it shouldn't be a problem to man SAM sites either.

Sure it's necessary to have some aircraft to monitor airspace but what I'm trying to say is that you could succesfully replace fighter defence with a ground based SAM grid and save some money.

[jerka71_1]

Well for example the Russian S-300 series has ~200km range. It can easily cover any major population centers.
And then of course short range missiles for low flying targets.
S-300 is reportedly a +100 million$ a battery. Not exactly cheap...




A lot of good did fighters do Serbia and Iraq. Each and every time they got up they were shot down ****to. The SAMs were much more effective in disrupting enemy air operations.
Not many countries (if any)have the ability to face the airpower the Alliance put up during those conflicts...
As for Iraq I think the fighters did worry the Alliance until they jumped the border. Better training might have raised those pilots confidence, who knows?




Well not really. You don't have to have 100% cover and most systems are mobile. What suicide terrorist would want to crash into a jungle. Or a hostile nation air assault.
As I said with a fighter option you can choose to take the fight over the sea or jungle. Not close to your objectives or populated areas.




True. But pilots aren't cheap either and only a handfull are ready for action at any given time unless it's a wartime, when it shouldn't be a problem to man SAM sites either.
You´ll only need two crews on alert and still be able to reach your entire airspace at any time. With the SAMs you´ll need one crew for each system in the field.



Sure it's necessary to have some aircraft to monitor airspace but what I'm trying to say is that you could succesfully replace fighter defence with a ground based SAM grid and save some money.
You´ll never trust your IFF in peacetime. You´ll need a positive identification in order to use firepower.

@Kaapeli: Don´t take my arguments to seriously. I´m just killing time...
SAMs are needed in a wartime airdefence as much as fighters. But during peacetime I´ll stick to the fighters..p-)

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

And even if the RAAF decided to fly into NZ airspace without permission, what can NZ do about it? :)


Beat the **** out of your cricket team again.

And again.

And again...

rofl


I wasn't winging I personally believe all conflicts should be sorted out in a rugby stadium anyway so I cant really bag the Kiwis.

I wasn't talking to you.



I don't think that's a fair assessment of Australia's air defence system.


So it's fair for an Aussie to whinge that NZ doesn't have a combat wing in it's airforce in order to prevent a 9/11 scenario from occuring, but it's not fair for a Kiwi to point out that even with it's well developed combat wing the RAAF couldn't stop the same scenario happening most of the time either?


You're really worth paying attention to from now on.:roll:

[AROUETLJ]

Is it not time that these countries to start to look at getting fighter to defence their airspaces and could not countries like america look at at least loading are leasing a dozen fighter to help them in this issue?


Is it not time you collected a few million dollars to help them in this noble enterprise? Assuming, naturally, that this is a serious thread and not a piss-take.

[schwarz]

God knows that the U.S has hundreds of spare fighters sitting around so why not give a few to countries who need them and can't afford them and who work along side Nato forces?

Yea sure why not..........:bash:

[DanteXavier]

Yea sure why not..........:bash:

I dunno, I don't completely agree with everything he said but this doesn't seem like such a horrible idea. I mean, the US does have lots of spare jets that are not only going unused, but also haven't been sold off and are still perfectly usable.

[Bobbo_]

Even us, in small Norway, are considering renewal of our jets. Think we have somewhat 50+ F-16 and are planning to buy the same amount of F-35's or Gripens...

[velvet-cream]

Beat the **** out of your cricket team again.

And again.

And again...



Whatever keeps you kiwis warm at night. :)

[LordWilliam]

Well even Mexico is gething new fighters.
We have and are especting to receive the following till 2008.
10 F-5E
02 F-5F
40 F-18 Hornet
30 F-16 LockHead
02 SU-30MKK Flanker
10 SU-27 Flanker
Plus we are negotiating around 20-50 MIG-29G.

[LordWilliam]

Oh I forgot to mention we also operate around 30 T-33 ShootingStar out of 80. Who knows what hapen tot the other 50.
And we might have some AT-58 too.
Among other home build jet trainers and survailance aircraft.

[DanteXavier]

Well even Mexico is gething new fighters.
We have and are especting to receive the following till 2008.
10 F-5E
02 F-5F
40 F-18 Hornet
30 F-16 LockHead
02 SU-30MKK Flanker
10 SU-27 Flanker
Plus we are negotiating around 20-50 MIG-29G.

I heard about the Flanker's, but when were those hornet's ordered?

Well, in either case, I'm happy to see Mexico get some jets. It's such a substantial country, and all this time I've wondered why they've only had a few F-5s in their fighter inventory.

[LRPV]

Someone yanked ngatis chain again.

[jango]

Yet another aussie whinging about NZ. You guys have been hanging around the poms too long.




http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=65735&highlight=Zealand+force


^^^^Already done to death but lets break out the crayons for jango and co anyway.





Here we have the first of your assumptions. NZ can afford combat aircraft. It just chooses not too. Such is our democratic perogative.

Don't like it?

Suck's to be you then, eh?



Yep, a Cessna 172.

Flying low around the CBD, I could just see an F-16/18 'surgically' shooting it down with AIM-9, AMRAAM, 20mm with all those buildings full of civies around.:roll:



No.

Where are RAAF F-18's based?

What are their response times?

If a 747 out of Kingsford Smith gets hijacked and heads toward the Sydney opera house tonight is there going to be an F-18 on CAP ready to down it?

No?

Why not?
Even with what Australia has right now they can't possibly stop a 9/11 scenario most of the time let alone all of the time.

You go ahead and sort your own **** out before bother anyone else.



Who says you do?




Sure there are.

You just have to ask real nice like, what with us being a sovereign country and all.



From who? Happy feet and rest of the penguin hordes?roflWell we could stop a 9/11 style attack becouse we have the fighter to do it. And at least we can do it if we have to.

[LordWilliam]

I heard about the Flanker's, but when were those hornet's ordered?

Well, in either case, I'm happy to see Mexico get some jets. It's such a substantial country, and all this time I've wondered why they've only had a few F-5s in their fighter inventory.

Well actually your country ofered them, in a so call "Friend Price"
either way we are geting 40 F/A-18 C/D Hornet and 30 F-16 by 2008.
Ether way they are just going to be sitting in the border whit Guatemala and Belize, only using about 12 F-18 and mabye 10 F-16 the rest are just for ?????
The main fighter for the FAM will be the MIG-29G aprox around 20-50 still in negosiation, if not then all F-18 and F-16 might enter service.
Along whit the navy flankers and a future add of 30 SU-30MKK.
Just plans of acquirering nothing for sure. *(Note in dark black nothing sure).

[Fee Fi Fo Fum]

Shooting down civilian airliners(even after 9/11) is no countrys main objective for having an air force. If an objective at all?

To actually take that deciscion and make it happen in time before the situation already passed would be a political/military nightmare.

It should be interesting to know what ROE.s/procedures the fighters scrambled on 9/11 had.

Depending on the situation, and the information at hand the decision to make contact and bring the craft down would lie with the Prime minister/head of government etc. I believe the decision to shoot hijacked airliners down was authorised by the president during the attacks of 9/11. (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm)

It certainly is not an objective, per se. But it certainly is a capability for such a scenario. Forgetting about the political nightmare alone for a second, if terrorists defied odds once again and where heading for a major city like London or Sydney etc the choice to shoot it down before it reached city borders would most probably be the best outcome for obvious reasons. And I'm sure procedures for such measures are evaluated on a regular basis during these dark times.

[budgie]

I am aware that at this time that countrys such as New Zealand and Ireland have no jet fighters in their air force and air corp. The reason being that they cannot afford them.


It's also a matter of budget concerns. I don't mind the Labour government's social initiatives in NZ, but money should always be put aside for air defence. NZ always had a small multi-role fighter wing (around 24 A4 Skyhawks for about 30 years) and I don't see the harm in keeping a similar number of Gripens or F-16s, not just in case they're ever needed but also to hold up our end of regional defence agreements. We could even get second hand Harriers or something from the UK as they're phased out. It doesn't have to be something as glamorous or expensive as the F35 or Eurofighter.

[budgie]

Well even Mexico is gething new fighters.
We have and are especting to receive the following till 2008.
10 F-5E
02 F-5F
40 F-18 Hornet
30 F-16 LockHead
02 SU-30MKK Flanker
10 SU-27 Flanker
Plus we are negotiating around 20-50 MIG-29G.

Why such a diversity in brands? For example the flankers and Hornets do the same job, as do the F16s and Mig29s. Is it simply a matter of price?

[jerka71_1]

Depending on the situation, and the information at hand the decision to make contact and bring the craft down would lie with the Prime minister/head of government etc. I believe the decision to shoot hijacked airliners down was authorised by the president during the attacks of 9/11. (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm)

It certainly is not an objective, per se. But it certainly is a capability for such a scenario. Forgetting about the political nightmare alone for a second, if terrorists defied odds once again and where heading for a major city like London or Sydney etc the choice to shoot it down before it reached city borders would most probably be the best outcome for obvious reasons. And I'm sure procedures for such measures are evaluated on a regular basis during these dark times.

Sounds like we have the same point of view on this subject. The problem as I see it would be to be sure that the AC heading for a potential city really has been hijacked. They wouldn´t really get on the radio calling it out, or? ETA from most major citys airports until reaching downtown is in many cases only a few minutes. So is there really any time to react?

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Well we could stop a 9/11 style attack becouse we have the fighter to do it. And at least we can do it if we have to.

What are you, twelve years old?

Simply having a fighter(s) in your air force inventory doesn't mean you can stop it from happening. They would have to be positioned and ready to intercept.

I reiterate, if a 747 is hijacked immediately after take off from Sydney international airport in the next five minutes whats going to stop the terrorists on board flying it into the Sydney opera house, or any other building they wish to in down town Sydney?

How many RAAF F-18's are flying CAP over Sydney right now?

And Canberra?

And Melbourne?

And Perth?

You're an ignorant little kid whining about something you know nothing about.

[DanteXavier]

Well actually your country ofered them, in a so call "Friend Price"
either way we are geting 40 F/A-18 C/D Hornet and 30 F-16 by 2008.
Ether way they are just going to be sitting in the border whit Guatemala and Belize, only using about 12 F-18 and mabye 10 F-16 the rest are just for ?????
The main fighter for the FAM will be the MIG-29G aprox around 20-50 still in negosiation, if not then all F-18 and F-16 might enter service.
Along whit the navy flankers and a future add of 30 SU-30MKK.
Just plans of acquirering nothing for sure. *(Note in dark black nothing sure).

Very interesting. Congrats to you guys, great to see some fighters going to mexico for a change.:)

[ZoneOne]

New Zealand Jets - a little old as you can see :-)

http://www.archives.govt.nz/exhibitions/currentexhibitions/makingourmark/images/gallery/img32.jpg

[Ordie]

Well even Mexico is gething new fighters.
We have and are especting to receive the following till 2008.
10 F-5E
02 F-5F
40 F-18 Hornet
30 F-16 LockHead
02 SU-30MKK Flanker
10 SU-27 Flanker
Plus we are negotiating around 20-50 MIG-29G.

What's your source?

Sorry to question you, but the Mexican press does a poor job in fact checking or getting the aircraft nomenclature right.

[tboy01]

How many RAAF F-18's are flying CAP over Sydney right now?

And Canberra?

And Melbourne?

And Perth?

You're an ignorant little kid whining about something you know nothing about.

Good question? Do you know how many? In fact is it a daily ritual in the US? Or do they just do it upon a heghtened threat level?

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

New Zealand Jets - a little old as you can see :-)

Your intelligence needs to be updated. That photo would have been taken in the 70's, long before the Kahu upgrade; APG-65 radar, HOTAS, etc.

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/7482/6205bank7sc.jpg

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/1862/sky17va.jpg




Do you know how many?

No idea, which is why I asked.

I understand that for special event's, the Olympics, etc, that CAP's are run, but 24/7/365 over every major city? Because that is what would have to occur for an effective physical counter to a '9/11' threat.

And lets not even get into the phsycology of your average knuck being able/willing to shoot down a jumbo packed with civies...

[jango]

What are you, twelve years old?

Simply having a fighter(s) in your air force inventory doesn't mean you can stop it from happening. They would have to be positioned and ready to intercept.

I reiterate, if a 747 is hijacked immediately after take off from Sydney international airport in the next five minutes whats going to stop the terrorists on board flying it into the Sydney opera house, or any other building they wish to in down town Sydney?

How many RAAF F-18's are flying CAP over Sydney right now?

And Canberra?

And Melbourne?

And Perth?

You're an ignorant little kid whining about something you know nothing about.well i know that there are two F/A-18's at edinburgh outside of adelaide.
Beside i think that you have to reread my statement becouse the RAAF doe's have the fighters to do the job. Now drink your warm milk take your afternoon nap and stay calm. I made no comment on were they are based at the moment.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

well i know that there are two F/A-18's at edinburgh outside of adelaide.
Beside i think that you have to reread my statement becouse the RAAF doe's have the fighters to do the job. Now drink your warm milk take your afternoon nap and stay calm. I made no comment on were they are based at the moment.

So why are you whining about other countries when your own isn't up to the standards that you demand?

Dry your eyes and blow your nose, cry baby.

[jango]

So why are you whining about other countries when your own isn't up to the standards that you demand?

Dry your eyes and blow your nose, cry baby.Becouse if new zealand needed fighters defending it airspace the RAAF is the only air force in the region who could do the job.

And if this happened then that would weaken Australian's air defence capacity. This is the view and opinion of the Howard goverment and the Labour party as well. So now that the NZ air force is not up to the demanded standard and they needed fighters doing combat air patrols over their country it is the Australia taxpayer who foot the bills. Those are the fact as they stand today.

[Aussie Sapper]

^and the Australian Air Force could protect New Zeland.

Mate,, what makes you think we would bother???

[Hispeed1]

The Phillipines doesn't have fighters either I think.

They have like 2 or 2 1/2 old F-5's. . .:-(

[martinexsquaddie]

eire's not exactly facing many air threats if any.
not like mad dogs going to climb into a surplus jet and go on a suicide run is he .
same with new zealand middle of nowhere unless a US carrier group decides to invade theres no realistic threat

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Becouse if new zealand needed fighters defending it airspace the RAAF is the only air force in the region who could do the job.

If? If?

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, if is the middle word in life...


And if this happened then that would weaken Australian's air defence capacity.

You mean the 'Australian's air defence capacity' that can't even protect Australia against the threat that you accuse NZ of neglecting?



This is the view and opinion of the Howard goverment and the Labour party as well.

So?

Who says that Howard has to send the RAAF to defend NZ even if Clark asked for them?


So now that the NZ air force is not up to the demanded standard

Demanded by whom?

Australia?

You think we give a **** about what a few winging aussies have to say?

Do your self a favour and read up on how Alexander Downer described NZ and it's security relationship with Australia a couple of days ago.




and they needed fighters doing combat air patrols over their country it is the Australia taxpayer who foot the bills. Those are the fact as they stand today.

If we needed, but we don't.

If the RAAF can't defend Australia from a 9/11 threat then how could it defend NZ?

Fact's that can't be documented aren't facts at all. You don't have facts, you have conclusions based on definative statements driven by your own ignorance based bias.







Mate,, what makes you think we would bother???


What makes you think we give a ****?

[oldsoak]

I'm curious - IF and its a big IF, NZ were attacked - what does she expect of her allies given the distances involved ?

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Nothing, because unlike some we are realistic.

[Engine Mech]

I like you'r reply Ngati. the only combat missions the A4s and the strikemasters flew were to scare a fishing boat and to sink a floating shipping container. To attack shipping containers we still have the multirole Avro 626 to do that.

[jango]

Guys i think that it is safe to say that Ngati has lost it becouse he is doing nothing but abusing anyone who says something he does not agree with.

[oldsoak]

He's never been rude to me, and he can back his arguements better than most.

[martinexsquaddie]

middle of nowhere no realistic threat from anywhere
if that bothered by some sams
but as theres nothing like the twin towers ploughing a hijacked plane into the ground or having the nzaf brand new raptors:) shoot it out of the sky will have the same effect

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Guys i think that it is safe to say that Ngati has lost it becouse he is doing nothing but abusing anyone who says something he does not agree with.


How surprising.

You are incapable of disproving any of my points so you go running to the rest of the audience for support.

Let's just recap.


But since 911 any country without fighters are leaving their airspaces open to attacks at anytime without the ability to react.



Where are RAAF F-18's based?

What are their response times?

If a 747 out of Kingsford Smith gets hijacked and heads toward the Sydney opera house tonight is there going to be an F-18 on CAP ready to down it?

No?

Why not?
Even with what Australia has right now they can't possibly stop a 9/11 scenario most of the time let alone all of the time.




Well we could stop a 9/11 style attack becouse we have the fighter to do it. And at least we can do it if we have to.



Simply having a fighter(s) in your air force inventory doesn't mean you can stop it from happening. They would have to be positioned and ready to intercept.

I reiterate, if a 747 is hijacked immediately after take off from Sydney international airport in the next five minutes whats going to stop the terrorists on board flying it into the Sydney opera house, or any other building they wish to in down town Sydney?

How many RAAF F-18's are flying CAP over Sydney right now?

And Canberra?

And Melbourne?

And Perth?



well i know that there are two F/A-18's at edinburgh outside of adelaide.
Beside i think that you have to reread my statement becouse the RAAF doe's have the fighters to do the job.


So why are you whining about other countries when your own isn't up to the standards that you demand?



Becouse if new zealand needed fighters defending it airspace the RAAF is the only air force in the region who could do the job.

And if this happened then that would weaken Australian's air defence capacity. This is the view and opinion of the Howard goverment and the Labour party as well. So now that the NZ air force is not up to the demanded standard and they needed fighters doing combat air patrols over their country it is the Australia taxpayer who foot the bills. Those are the fact as they stand today.


You mean the 'Australian's air defence capacity' that can't even protect Australia against the threat that you accuse NZ of neglecting?



Who says that Howard has to send the RAAF to defend NZ even if Clark asked for them?



Do yourself a favour and read up on how Alexander Downer described NZ and it's security relationship with Australia a couple of days ago.



If the RAAF can't defend Australia from a 9/11 threat then how could it defend NZ?

Fact's that can't be documented aren't facts at all. You don't have facts, you have conclusions based on definative statements driven by your own ignorance based bias.

Which is pretty much where it finishes because you start sucking up to the rest of the audience from then on.

vv Quoted for accuracy vv


So it's fair for an Aussie to whinge that NZ doesn't have a combat wing in it's airforce in order to prevent a 9/11 scenario from occuring, but it's not fair for a Kiwi to point out that even with it's well developed combat wing the RAAF couldn't stop the same scenario happening most of the time either?


We (NZ) don't give a **** about what australia thinks of our policies, and I would think that the reverse was true.
It's sad and fairly pathetic that a minority of aussies think that NZ is a province of the 'motherland' that should toe the party line and follow suggestions like a good dog.

Don't like it?

Suck's to be you then, heh.

[Aussie Sapper]

We (NZ) don't give a **** about what australia thinks of our policies, and I would think that the reverse was true.
It's sad and fairly pathetic that a minority of aussies think that NZ is a province of the 'motherland' that should toe the party line and follow suggestions like a good dog.

Don't like it?

Suck's to be you then, heh.

Mate,, it is amazing how inflated some ego's have become just because NZ won the cricket of late (against a depelted Aussie) squad,,,,:)

[Engine Mech]

The use of fighter jets against terrorests is not a viable concept. Unless you have the pilots sitting in their aircraft 24Hrs a day the time from warning to launch is too great. When all is ready to go 20 min launch time. On a weekend if you can find everyone launch time 2 to 4 Hrs. The F111s fly missions from oz to NZ and and back and the Kiwis don't even know they have done it. ON excercises the air force couldnt stop the SAS from blowing up all the aircraft. Jet fighters look good at airshows but small numbers operating from one base only works if the enemy tells when they are coming.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Mate,, it is amazing how inflated some ego's have become just because NZ won the cricket of late (against a depelted Aussie) squad,,,,:)

I was wondering how long it would take for the excuses to start flowing. Shoulda tried the underarm bowl again, eh?


No, an example of an inflated ego is an Aussie telling a Kiwi how to run their country.

[junglejim]

They have like 2 or 2 1/2 old F-5's. . .:-(


Actually all the F-5's have been retired as of last year. This was done to reallocate the budget into more priority aircrafts for fighting the insurgency. As most would know the country's concern is its internal security, fighting an insurgency along 3 fronts (rebel movements) some how the F-5's and the money being allocated to maintaining it is not being put to good use. So the armed forces decided to put the fleet to retirement and use the money in buying more choppers(I believe they are targeting 74 flying UH1N's as well as an on going bid for Attack Helicopters, most likely Cobras by 2008) as well as upgrading the COIN aircrafts (S.260's and OV-10's).

The armed forces is aware of the need for an MRF and is planning to start bidding in 2012.

[Aussie Sapper]

I was wondering how long it would take for the excuses to start flowing. Shoulda tried the underarm bowl again, eh?

What can I possibly say about that incident of un-sporting behaviour that has already not been said before,,,,:)

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Nothing. The three nil black wash say's it all.rofl

[Tiger75]

and the Australian Air Force could protect New Zeland.



HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAA

would love to see that......pmsl rofl



Not a chance, cause if NZ was attacked Australia must already be wiped of the face of this earth.......and besides.....whats in NZ anyway?

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

and besides.....whats in NZ anyway?

The Chapall-Hadlee cup...

[Tiger75]

Keep it.........lmao.........hahahahaherhehehehAHAHAHHAHAHA

Nobody gives a rats arse except for kiwis

[Aussie Sapper]

The Chapall-Hadlee cup...

Mate,, I would check my spelling if I were you,,,,:)

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Nobody gives a rats arse except for kiwis

Sure they don't sport, sure they don't.

It means everything when you win, but nothing when you lose right?rofl



Mate,, I would check my spelling if I were you,,,,

The name of the sportsman is spelt right, as for the cheat who cares...

[Aussie Sapper]

The name of the sportsman is spelt right, as for the cheat who cares...
Don't get me wrong,, that one un-sportman incident left a bitter taste in my mouth as well.

[n4292936]

The Phillipines doesn't have fighters either I think.

Nordin Top might argue otherwise

[Tiger75]

Modernization
By the time the United States Armed Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces) left the Philippines, the Philippine Air Force was direly in need of modernization. By the 1990s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s), it was still using 30-year-old F-5A fighter jets. The first aircraft acquired during its five-year modernization plan were the Aermacchi S-211 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aermacchi_S-211) and the McDonnell Douglas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas) MD-520MG Defender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-6).
The planned purchase of modern fighter aircraft, with the F-16 Fighting Falcon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon), JAS 39C/D Gripen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Gripen), or the F/A-18 Hornet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet) being the most popular choices, has been put on hold as the PAF concentrates in bringing its current fleet of aircraft into current and flyable standards.
Current efforts are concentrated on the acquisition of aircraft for counter-insurgency (COIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_insurgency)) operations. The purchase of more transport aircraft is also a priority.


http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Air_Force

[jango]

It's also a matter of budget concerns. I don't mind the Labour government's social initiatives in NZ, but money should always be put aside for air defence. NZ always had a small multi-role fighter wing (around 24 A4 Skyhawks for about 30 years) and I don't see the harm in keeping a similar number of Gripens or F-16s, not just in case they're ever needed but also to hold up our end of regional defence agreements. We could even get second hand Harriers or something from the UK as they're phased out. It doesn't have to be something as glamorous or expensive as the F35 or Eurofighter.totally agree with you on that one.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Gee, you just don't get it do you?

[oldsoak]

Enough of this merriment ! :lol:
Given that we've exhausted the possibilities of a kiwi buy of 150 F22's, whats the latest on the next best thing ? Will they be doing much on the MPA front - eg updatingthe Orions etc ?

[Engine Mech]

The NZ P3 Orion NZ$352 million upgrades start 2006 and go to 2010. The purpose of the upgrade is to enhance the Orion's ability to coduct a wide range of surface surveillance tasks and meet international air traffic control requirements. No anti sub upgrade. Search and rescue and fisheries surveillance with some anti terrorism shipping surveillance.