Comments on: RNZAF to regain teeth?

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 06:39:46 +0000

I think the biggest loss is not the planes but the cadre of trained personal. It didn’t matter so much that the Skyhawks were old, as shown replacements were easy to find but if the time comes when we need a fighter force there will be no one trained to fly or support them. The Macchis have more ground attack capability than the standard advanced trainer so would be useful in training ground crew as well as providing the navy and army with a more realistic threat simulation.

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:28:41 +0000

Disaster, people go on about the brain drain in this country and here is prime example. Good old Aunty Helen really cooked the goose on this one didnt she. You always have to watch out when a Labour govt gets into power, defence usually gets crucified, taxes go through the roof, loads of imports into the country, and National is left to pick up the pieces. I think it is a crying shame what they did to our once very proud RNZAF. We are nothing more than a third world Air Force good for a bit of transport and SAR work and thats about it. Helen Clark should be made to foot the bill of $35 million after all its her stuff up. we should of got the F16s and remained a credible allie around the Pacific, no one knows what the future holds. The politicians in the UK many years ago thought the RAF didnt need aircraft, then WW2 broke out about two years later.

By: neil

neil — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:43:14 +0000

our old squawks are sitting at woodbourne ,water seeping in, requiring people to drill holes to let the water out. the project kahu avionics on some of them are stuffed, one lot being taken out,inspected and found to be corroded beyond repair.looking at them i was confused as whether to cry with shame, laugh at a labour government , or simply scream with rage at the waste,and the feeling of being defenceless

By: ariki gell

ariki gell — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:52:39 +0000

Again, the macchis should be put back into service. I agree despite the sentiment and my love of the scooter, that we have no need for 45 year old fighter aircraft. Its a bit like the retirement of your favourite rugby league player or cricketer, you dont want them to go, but its their time. Today’s Herald is right. New zealand needs to show teeth in its regional defence responsibility, IT IS the first responsibility of a government to defend its citizens, then health then education then jobs. Despite the recession, we CAN afford it. To maintain some close support facility is to keen the concept of an air attack role alive, I as a tax payer would like to say, its what I want my tax money to be spent on. New Zealand spent $800 million last year on mental health, if you are mentally ill thats unfortunate. To expect the tax payer to support you is a privilege not a right. $100 million on an air wing is a right not a privilege.

By: Regan

Regan — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:35:56 +0000

The 28 f-16 would have been one of the best things for our air force its a real petty what labour did. our fighter pilots where some of the best in the world with the A-4′s yeah there old tech but our pilots really knew how to fly them. I work with a lot of x air force guys and the story’s they would tell one time our old A-4 managed to sink a fleet of US navy warships in an training exercise come in low an fast and really surprised the US navy that if we could do it in our old A-4s they had a problem unsure what year that was though. if they spent half the money they spend on our Work and income e.g dole we would have a pretty good defense force i know where only a small country but we”re sitting duck’s if god forbid an other country decided to attack us. funny thing is we gotta all these LAV’s for the army but we can’t get them any where fast there to big to fit in our c-130s they had to hire an cargo 747 to get the last lot to the middle east at unsure what the price was to get them there but see maybe two c-17 would come in handy for our air force. any way i hope they do put the Aermacchi’s back into service i’m sure the army would appreciate it bet’s work with Learjet’s that they hire out for training exercises to do with high speed aircraft.

By: John dingo

John dingo — Fri, 22 May 2009 00:16:41 +0000

New Zealand should bring back the strike wing because how the **** are we suposed to defend New Zealand against terrists or other countrys

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:17:43 +0000

bolger and shipley brought you the f-16′s

clark feels her and her hippy friends should stop that

and then disband the ACF…

close hobsonville…

order a very small of helos…

send whenuapai to the grave…

upgrade aircraft when we really need new ones…

but hey, its not your job that was lost was?

but thats ok isnt it helen? is it?

By: Ariki Gell

Ariki Gell — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 06:51:52 +0000

Sorry, disagree on the terrorism front. Macchis wont help there. Just like B-52′s didnt help in Vietnam or over Afghanistan.

National wont go the strike wing, Ive already asked. However, we should focus on and clarify the value of the Macchis as trainers with a limited strike capability. C&B Analysis anyone.

By: Phil (Pacific Empire)

Phil (Pacific Empire) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:20:11 +0000

Dude, you're getting confused with one my my previous posts...

By: Luke H

Luke H — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:33:36 +0000

Yes,small, cheap attack aircraft could be EXTREMELY useful for terrorists.

Wait, what?