Waikanae just been buzzed by a jet fighter!

Forums › Off topic › Waikanae just been buzzed by a jet fighter!

1 | 2 | 3

WolfmanNZ

124 posts

Master Geek

#1859760 6-Sep-2017 15:11

nbroad:

WolfmanNZ:

I live in Palmy, work on the 3rd floor of an office building so have a little bit of a view, out towards Ohakea direction one side and towards the airport/Ruapehu on another, and STILL havent seen a bloody F-16 since they arrived! Give us a fly-by dammit!

10 mins after your post they fly over Palmy.. I could hear, but not see them.. possibly above cloud.

We just saw them!!! A pair heading north-west.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

WolfmanNZ

124 posts

Master Geek

#1859772 6-Sep-2017 15:39

Clearly they were monitoring my posts as 2 of them just banked over the city on the North east side, then headed back north west.

MikeB4

18118 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1859777 6-Sep-2017 15:44

I may have to drive up there and have a look

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1859779 6-Sep-2017 15:47

Didn't actually see any F-16s when I drove past Ohakea yesterday about 5pm.

tripper1000

1539 posts

Uber Geek

#1860343 7-Sep-2017 14:36

MikeB4:

Geektastic:
Oblivian:

But in seriousness.

Look at the size of Singapore. They even come (or did) to Waiouru and Tekapo to do training. If they have live fire training in SQ, they hit a neighbor or something close.

So similarly their jets are here with some nice terrain to hug and a bit of empty airspace.

Equally, on the subject of size, they have roughly our population but can afford a proper airforce....

A fighter/ strike force we do not need.

...and we've never needed one in the past, and we'll never need one in the future because the world is a static place....?

Next you'll be trying to tell me I don't need a lock on my front door because I haven't been burgled in 40 years.

MikeB4

18118 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1860347 7-Sep-2017 14:44

tripper1000:

...and we've never needed one in the past, and we'll never need one in the future because the world is a static place....?

Next you'll be trying to tell me I don't need a lock on my front door because I haven't been burgled in 40 years.

Don't think I will. Doesn't change the position that several hundred million does not need to be wasted on fighter squadrons.

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1860361 7-Sep-2017 15:08

MikeB4:

A fighter/ strike force we do not need.

Regretfully, I agree.

A peacetime combat air force (or army or navy) is partly about maintaining a trained cohort to meet a future threat, and partly to be able to contribute to multinational alliances, defending NZ as far from home as possible. It's irresponsible to rely on the USA and Australia to defend us without making a fair contribution to our mutual defence. Hence the Skyhawk permanent deployment to Australia, Vampires and Canberras to Singapore, etc.

If the Govt decided today that we needed a strike force, it would take 10 years to build the infrastructure and train pilots and so on to a useful operational standard. So, at any point in time, it will always be a horrendously expensive thing to do, for some 10-year distant threat. The horse has pretty much bolted on this one.

We therefore have to meet commitments to alliances in some other way; Navy (which seems to struggle to get enough people), Army, or perhaps Air Force transport and/or maritime patrol.

WolfmanNZ

124 posts

Master Geek

#1860384 7-Sep-2017 15:55

frankv:

MikeB4:

A fighter/ strike force we do not need.

Regretfully, I agree.

A peacetime combat air force (or army or navy) is partly about maintaining a trained cohort to meet a future threat, and partly to be able to contribute to multinational alliances, defending NZ as far from home as possible. It's irresponsible to rely on the USA and Australia to defend us without making a fair contribution to our mutual defence. Hence the Skyhawk permanent deployment to Australia, Vampires and Canberras to Singapore, etc.

If the Govt decided today that we needed a strike force, it would take 10 years to build the infrastructure and train pilots and so on to a useful operational standard. So, at any point in time, it will always be a horrendously expensive thing to do, for some 10-year distant threat. The horse has pretty much bolted on this one.

We therefore have to meet commitments to alliances in some other way; Navy (which seems to struggle to get enough people), Army, or perhaps Air Force transport and/or maritime patrol.

Dingbatt

6416 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1860475 7-Sep-2017 17:44

frankv:
MikeB4:

A fighter/ strike force we do not need.

Regretfully, I agree.

A peacetime combat air force (or army or navy) is partly about maintaining a trained cohort to meet a future threat, and partly to be able to contribute to multinational alliances, defending NZ as far from home as possible. It's irresponsible to rely on the USA and Australia to defend us without making a fair contribution to our mutual defence. Hence the Skyhawk permanent deployment to Australia, Vampires and Canberras to Singapore, etc.

If the Govt decided today that we needed a strike force, it would take 10 years to build the infrastructure and train pilots and so on to a useful operational standard. So, at any point in time, it will always be a horrendously expensive thing to do, for some 10-year distant threat. The horse has pretty much bolted on this one.

We therefore have to meet commitments to alliances in some other way; Navy (which seems to struggle to get enough people), Army, or perhaps Air Force transport and/or maritime patrol.

Unfortunately the length of time that has passed since Helen and her hippies disbanded the strike wing (2, 14 and 75 Sqns) means the corporate knowledge built up over 60 years of fighter-bomber ops has evaporated. Even the junior knucks that were just starting their training are long gone. The only hope would reside with crew that the RAF disposed of when they downsized.
The skill is gone forever I'm afraid. The new skill is more likely to be logging on to a computer to pilot a UAV.

I find comparisons between Singapore and here because of the similar populations completely specious. NZ is not surrounded by frenemies like Singapore is, unless you count the Aussies on the sporting fields.

To my knowledge the A-4K was only ever detached overseas. 2 Sqn being based on RANS Nowra (NSW) doing Navy co-op flying (done by learjets now). Four Skyhawks.

Glad the F16s are here. Great to hear the sound of freedom again.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

tripper1000

1539 posts

Uber Geek

#1860478 7-Sep-2017 18:05

frankv:

MikeB4:

A fighter/ strike force we do not need.

Regretfully, I agree.

A peacetime combat air force (or army or navy) is partly about maintaining a trained cohort to meet a future threat, and partly to be able to contribute to multinational alliances, defending NZ as far from home as possible. It's irresponsible to rely on the USA and Australia to defend us without making a fair contribution to our mutual defence. Hence the Skyhawk permanent deployment to Australia, Vampires and Canberras to Singapore, etc.

If the Govt decided today that we needed a strike force, it would take 10 years to build the infrastructure and train pilots and so on to a useful operational standard. So, at any point in time, it will always be a horrendously expensive thing to do, for some 10-year distant threat. The horse has pretty much bolted on this one.

We therefore have to meet commitments to alliances in some other way; Navy (which seems to struggle to get enough people), Army, or perhaps Air Force transport and/or maritime patrol.

Don't factor the USA into a defense strategy - ANZUS is dead baby - Lange wiped his butt with that piece of paper in 1984 . Australia is pretty p!ssed with our laissez faire defense attitudes because NZ is a great/the only staging post to attack Australia from their south and south eastern sides. Australian intervention would not necessarily be helpful to us as it would be primarily in self defense, which, as a last ditch effort, would be to mine and destroy our ports and airports to prevent their use by an aggressor of Australia.

I think it shows how extremely unpatriotic Kiwi's are that we don't value this land enough to defend it. Our air boarders and sky are wide open (ie no lock on the front door), so much so that we can't even defend the country/sky tower from an attack by a fricking Piper Cherokee. Now I find that embarrassing - don't you?

Having traveled overseas and lived in some really sh!tty countries, I think NZ is a better place than I ever have before and can appreciate better than before the reasons why some other countries would covert it. Therefore I think a strike wing is not only cool, but an important thing to have.

MikeB4

18118 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1860487 7-Sep-2017 18:51

tripper1000:
frankv:

MikeB4:

A fighter/ strike force we do not need.

Regretfully, I agree.

A peacetime combat air force (or army or navy) is partly about maintaining a trained cohort to meet a future threat, and partly to be able to contribute to multinational alliances, defending NZ as far from home as possible. It's irresponsible to rely on the USA and Australia to defend us without making a fair contribution to our mutual defence. Hence the Skyhawk permanent deployment to Australia, Vampires and Canberras to Singapore, etc.

If the Govt decided today that we needed a strike force, it would take 10 years to build the infrastructure and train pilots and so on to a useful operational standard. So, at any point in time, it will always be a horrendously expensive thing to do, for some 10-year distant threat. The horse has pretty much bolted on this one.

We therefore have to meet commitments to alliances in some other way; Navy (which seems to struggle to get enough people), Army, or perhaps Air Force transport and/or maritime patrol.

Don't factor the USA into a defense strategy - ANZUS is dead baby - Lange wiped his butt with that piece of paper in 1984 . Australia is pretty p!ssed with our laissez faire defense attitudes because NZ is a great/the only staging post to attack Australia from their south and south eastern sides. Australian intervention would not necessarily be helpful to us as it would be primarily in self defense, which, as a last ditch effort, would be to mine and destroy our ports and airports to prevent their use by an aggressor of Australia.

I think it shows how extremely unpatriotic Kiwi's are that we don't value this land enough to defend it. Our air boarders and sky are wide open (ie no lock on the front door), so much so that we can't even defend the country/sky tower from an attack by a fricking Piper Cherokee. Now I find that embarrassing - don't you?

Having traveled overseas and lived in some really sh!tty countries, I think NZ is a better place than I ever have before and can appreciate better than before the reasons why some other countries would covert it. Therefore I think a strike wing is not only cool, but an important thing to have.

So you would be ok with tax increases to fund it or less beds in hospitals.

frankv

5581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1861397 9-Sep-2017 17:41

MikeB4:

So you would be ok with tax increases to fund it or less beds in hospitals.

Or selling off land to the Chinese... hopefully they'll defend us when they own enough.

1 | 2 | 3