I sometimes write things here that might be conceived as controversial – I do that as long as it is about opinions. But I’m not bs’ing here when it comes to facts as I happen to know them. And that figure is accurate, and no, I can’t and I won’t tell the source.

Okay mate fair enough but still; one large pinch of salt ‘to go’ please.

Yet surely your arithmetic would tell a similar story about any aircraft including the likes of the F16, F/A22, Rafale, Typhoon et al. Yes I know the F16 has a more powerful engine than the F404 in the Gripen but it is also considerably heavier than the Gripen and the F100/F110 considerably thirstier. I’m sure you will argue with my logic but if I am right you still do not make a good point for Poland or the Czech Republic or anybody else for that matter to not buy the Gripen. 🙂

Yes and no. Against such alluded terrorist attacks a fighter wing would be utterly useless anyway. Not even the US could prevent this sort of attack. All you can do there is count on watchfull police, officials and citizens.

The way I understand it you can shoot down a cruise missle. The Iraqis have done it and so too have the Serbs (bloody hell THEY even shot down an F117!) and yes I understand that they did not use aircraft to do this they used SAMs and AAA. However these countries were, by comparrison, blanketed by such defensive weapons, New Zealand is not. If you can see this thing coming you have a reasonable chance of getting an aircraft up to ‘have at it’ if you have an aircraft to start with; but it is a different thing altogether to get a SAM or AAA battery into the required location in order to shot it down from a ground station in a very limited amount of time. The New Zealand defence forces do not have an ’embarracement of riches’ when it comes to SAMs and AAA and such small numbers cannot be in two different places at once.

The only thing that the New Zealanders can do is trust that they will never have to face such an attack because with all the will in the world the SEATO forces such as they are, simply ain’t gonna get there in time to prevent loss of life however limited that loss of life may be. It simply is not worth the risk.

You got a point there. But if you consider the likeliness of them ever using a fighter plane, they probably did right: Unlike in Europe, no one violates their airspace because the country’s simply too far off. Any nation capable of deploying a naval air force would probably outpower anything the New Zealanders could afford anyway. So it seems more reasonable to seek an alliance (for example with Australia) and forget about a fighter wing. They do have a C-130 to contribute to an alliance but should probably consider a second one. I remember when they were about to deploy troops to the gulf and the deployment had to be postponded because of some engine problems of their Hercules. That was quite funny.

I understand what you are saying and it is logical but I am sure the RNZAF have more than one Herk’.

A couple of months ago a bloke in NZ built (or almost built) a complete ‘cruise missile’ in his garden shed. He was trying to prove a point but I think the point was missed by the press although not by the NZ authorities and they wanted to keep the real point hushed up.

Now this is pure speculation on my part but what I think he was trying to say is “look, I’m an ordinary bloke and I can build a cruise missle in my shed. If I can do it anybody can. I could launch it from anywhere, even a small fishing boat. If I can do that somebody on the Indian sub continent can do it, sail unnoticed to the islands and launch it and guess what? Even if we could see it coming we wouldn’t be able to do anything at all to stop it because we have no air combat wing. We are defenceless even against this ‘Heath Robinson toy'”.

I think it was an important point to make.

A hot candidate for the “most useless” category is Austria. They signed for 18 Eurofighter, but will never use them. Lots of other countries will never use their airforce, but at least admit to it and don’t even bother buying one.

You buy an airforce in the hope that you will never have to use it. If you don’t have one, one day you may wish you did have one.

So Austria are buying 18 Typhoons that you say they will never use yet you are quite happy to sell a poxy 12 F16s to that “sorry bunch or Czechs” knowing full well they probably, hopefully will never use either. Where exactly is your logic Distiller? I think you might find it between your legs.

the R.A.F are scrapping all the hercules by 2009 and then the A400’S will become the new transporters this is very sad as i live near RAF LYNEHAM so i see them everyday i dont like the new A400S i prefer the herc’s as ive flown in them loads of times.

Like the confusing chap PILOTHGT said they are only retiring the old C130Ks (C1 and C3). They are not retiring the C130Js (C4 and C5), they are buying A400Ms to supplement the Hercs not replace them.

They are also retaining a small number of C17s and this is where my confusion begins.

I read (I think it was in Flight International) a couple of months ago that the RAF were buying outright the 4 C17s they had and expanding the fleet to 11 aircraft, It even stated that deliveries of the extra aircraft had already begun. However, searching the web I have found no other article about this and nobody can or will confirm it. I suppose we will have to wait and see. :confused:

5,000 pounds internal fuel load equals 100km combat range ???

Did Distiller really say that? Okay I don’t know anything about fuel burn rates but I am sure that 5000lb of fuel is going to get you a whole lot further than 62miles(100km).

PILOT he might just be trying to wind people up again you might want to ignore him a little.:)

(@Phil: That’s no slur, but I won’t tell the source.)

Dis. Please explain. If you are not going to give sourses you will forgive me for taking what you say with a large pinch of salt. If you won’t verify it don’t claim it.

How about the RNZAF air combat wing? No disrespect to New Zealand they are as angry about it as anybody but they don’t have two fast jets to rub together at all.

Poland was invaded by the Soviets once, in 1939. In 1919, it was Poland which invaded Russia.

Fair enough but they didn’t in 1939, they didn’t deserve it in 1939 and the USSR was not occupied by the Poles for 50+ years. The point I am trying to make is that this isn’t anctient history to the Poles, not who was to blame or for what.:)