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?

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.

Wait, what?

With regards to the “imaginary global threat environment” you seem to think that we are secure as we are not threatened with invasion as we were in 1942. But this ignores a whole range of other threats including unconventional warfare and terrorism, which is exactly where small, cheap attack aircraft could be useful.

Jim: agreed, but do you really think National would reinstate the strike wing? I wouldn’t put money on it. Their policy papers do not indicate any increased investment in defence capabilities, and give the impression that they would support the status quo. Libertarianz, on the other hand…

From a cost perspective it would make sense to use them as they are costing money just sitting on the ground doing nothing, but how effective they would be as navigation trainers?

Any other benefit we could derive from their use, we should be realistic about. Im sure the army would like to see them providing close air support training-more so than the current model, which is to assume that the army is getting it from imaginary aircraft, how pathetic? I like the fact that they would provide a minimum skill base for dealing with armed fighter aircraft, and surely would be a morale booster for airforce recruitment.

Lastly, Its that imaginary global threat environment that got our combat wing scrapped by politicans in the first place, we are less likely to defend ourselves than we could in 1942. Ill change my mind though when the world starts running out of food and water, and starts licking its chops at the prospects of invading NZ. Ill go those 12 Mirage 2000′s that Qatar have got spare

I don’t actually think maritime strike should be a high priority for New Zealand. Firstly because any invading force would either have to go around or through Australia, or through the US screen of island bases and allies in the Western Pacific – suggesting that we should focus on our traditional alliances – and secondly because we could not hope to maintain an air force of sufficient size and sophistication to combat a determined invader. I suspect low-tech solutions like covertly deployed mines and torpedoes would be more effective, given our limited resources, if we were ever in that situation.

It’s not an important point, but I do think that despite the modern avionics of the Kahu upgrade, the A-4s are decrepit. The airframes themselves are aging, and when they were still flying, could not be flown at full speed because of the risk of structural failure – which would be a pretty major problem in the event of actual combat.

A more important point: interstate warfare is practically dead. Nuclear weapons, economic interdependence and new international norms have all played a part in the decline of state-versus-state warfare. However, light attack aircraft and helicopters will continue to play a vital role in fighting insurgents and terrorists.

I can definitely relate to your last sentence. I was a keen member of the Air Training Corps at the time that the combat wing was disbanded. When I attended the National Aviation Course, I was surrounded by wannabe fighter pilots. I have photos of us posing with the mothballed A-4Ks, and an old Strikemaster kept for training purposes. As you say, the perceived lack of a sharp end to the RNZAF turned many of us cadets off enlisting – it just made the air force seem boring and unglamorous.

I’m not sure as to the source of the Aermacchi rumours, but it still isn’t too late for the government to see sense. The air force needs that sharp end…