Thursday, December 29, 2011
Gradually though, Christmas got busier, and my little tradition fell by the wayside for a few years, not least because I a: started being allowed to drink at the family Christmas bash, and b: I married into a family that has Christmas dinners rather than the lunches that mine does.
This year though, we found ourselves with time on our hands at the end of the day, and everyone still awake, so the girls and I piled into the car and resurrected the cruise, starting with a lazy meal of chinese takeaways at Petone Beach.
The evening was warm, still, and perfect.
Charlotte on the sea wall at Petone:
Sunset from near the harbour entrance at Eastbourne:
Wellington Harbour from Eastbourne as the lights come on:
Including a big Christmas tree across the harbour entrance:
Days Bay wharf at dusk.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
By the looks of it just in time for them to be subjected to Simba's deranged REIGN OF TERROR...
*We are in a "Lion King" phase, after a long "Bambi" phase. I thought Bambi was bad, but this is worse. The "Finding Nemo" phase on the other hand wasn't so bad. That movie I actually enjoy :)
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Charlotte: "Where are we now?"
Her worldview is slightly different from ours...
At the age of three Charlotte has also been learning how to use the pocket digicam. It is never boring looking at the images she produces of what interests her after we let her loose with the thing.
The insights into how she is thinking can be quite fun. As Mia Wallace would say, warm:
I love that the image sequence shows her learning and adapting until she gets the image she wants.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
In the decade that has passed, the Air Combat Force comes up from time to time again either in the media or other conversation (not least due to the debacle that was the sales process for the redundant airframes). The thing I noticed both while the force was still active and latterly is the amount of myth and misunderstanding out there on the topic, usually as not-that-funny-if-you-know-any-of-the-true-background kind of humour. The force was seen by many as at best a token, at worst as a “Dad’s Army” style joke; incompetent operators with ancient broken-down flying jalopies, just as threatening to their users as to any potential enemy.
The truth is as usual kinda different.
Growing up as a plane obsessed kid, the Skyhawk in particular was ‘our’ fast jet so I wound up focussing on it and wound up knowing possibly more than the average layperson about it (but much less than many others I know). Ten years on seems an appropriate time to kill some of the myths.
And to those readers who say this is long and boring and aren't going to read it, it's my blog so :P.
First some history.
New Zealand bought 14 brand new Skyhawks in 1970. Back then they were still very much a first line piece of equipment. It was originally conceived in the 1950’s as the smallest and cheapest way to get a nuclear bomb from an aircraft carrier to a target. It evolved into a capable light attack aircraft, and by the time we bought them, had established a reputation as a reliable and rugged little jet popular with its operators. While not a true fighter in the air to air sense, the qualities that made it a good attack aircraft also made it a useful dogfighter, hence it’s starring role in “Top Gun” in the 80’s (the USN used the Skyhawk in an adversary combat trainer role right up until the mid 2000’s). In the right hands a Skyhawk could humble a supposedly much superior aircraft. It might have been an old design, but it was a very good one.
Now on to the myths
This was probably most untrue thing said about them at the time of the disbandment, (one of a number of flat out untrue government public statements used to justify the decision-whether that was malice or ignorance is hard to determine), and caused a bit of offence among those whose job it was to maintain and fly the things. They were getting old and harder to maintain, but were still mission capable, i.e. able to do what they were tasked. No aircraft has an infinite life, and the end of the Skyhawk’s RNZAF career was certainly on the horizon, but clapped out they were not. Replacement by the F-16 from 2000 or so would have made it a moot point if the already signed and pending delivery deal had not been cancelled after a change of government in 1999 (the same deal would have also on-sold the Skyhawks and avoided the last decade of not selling them).
Old and Useless, always crashing
Closely allied to the ‘old’ argument is the implication that mission capability is solely determined by age. Age is a relative thing though, especially in combat aircraft. 20, 30 or more year lifespans for individual airframes aren’t uncommon these days. They might have been getting older, but they certainly weren’t useless, not least because from the 1990’s they weren’t quite the same beasts we started with in 1970.
By the early 80’s the basic 60’s avionics and systems in the jet were showing their age, and options for replacement were looked at. Since the funds weren’t around to buy new aircraft like the F-16 or F-18, the next best thing was done. We doubled the fleet size by buying ten surplus Skyhawks from the Royal Australian Navy, and rebuilt the lot by renewing parts of the airframe and replacing all the avionics with those equivalent to an F-16, optimized for our needs. The new systems also meant more modern and effective weapons could be carried. Known as the 'Kahu' upgrade, it was completed in 1991.
In terms of capability the upgrade meant effectively a brand new aircraft. In some respects the on-board systems were superior to both the FA-18’s operated by our neighbours in Australia, and the actual F-16s we scheduled to replace them. So while technically by 2001 they were 30+ year old aircraft, in other ways they were still in their prime, and still capable in the roles we used them for. It is worth noting that upgraded Skyhawks similar to ours are still in service with a couple of other countries as a front line aircraft. The US military only retired their last from true combat roles in the 1990’s, and kept a few on until a few years after we retired ours. It was certainly not in the same league performance wise as more modern types, but it was a reasonable compromise for our needs and means.
Along with the aircraft, the people maintaining and flying them were as good as anyone. It might be a joke for many Kiwi’s, but our small military is usually pretty good at what it does. Rather than always crashing, of the total of 24 operated only 7 were destroyed from any cause over 31 years. For a combat aircraft it is a very good record, and the RNZAF was very good at using the Skyhawk. It may be a small Air Force, but an incompetent one it is not and once out of a job here, the Australian and British Air forces in particular were more than happy to take on some of our pilots and technicians on reputation.
Never deployed anywhere
Unless you count the annual deployments around Southeast Asia and the Pacific for exercises, or the permanent basing of a squadron in Australia for a decade up until 2001.
Never used in combat.
The only time an RNZAF A-4 used weapons ‘in anger’ was to stop an illegally fishing trawler that was refusing to stop for the naval vessels pursuing it in 1976. While often seen as a bit of a joke, this is a pretty legitimate use of an aircraft like this in peacetime, and certainly delivered the message that we were serious about enforcing our EEZ.
What doesn’t seem to be well known is that preparations were made for deploying them for use in the first Gulf War in 1991 (we sent a couple of Hercules instead). They were also coincidentally deployed near the East Timor region in 1999 when that crisis arose, and were prepared for the possibility of being employed there also if the situation demanded it. As it was RAAF reconnaissance missions in the area at the time were counted as operational sorties rather than training ones.
Not enough of them and no-one is going to attack NZ anyway.
On the face of it it seems like a fair point, but it is actually a oversimplification that misses the real question by a wide margin, and taken to its logical conclusion brings into question the existence to the New Zealand Defence Force in general.
The thing is, the NZDF has never been capable of repelling a determined attack of New Zealand territory on its own. The intention has always been to operate with allied forces, and defending NZ’s interests is not necessarily the same as literally defending NZ soil. The question to be asked is not ‘who is going to attack us?’, but ‘what benefits do the various elements of the NZDF provide to each other and the country for the cost?’
While disbanding the ACF freed up funds for the rest of the NZDF (even if it wasn’t always used wisely, like buying twice as many new armoured vehicles as we needed), having it also provided many training and skills benefits (most of them not obvious to the layperson) both to the other elements of the NZDF making it more effective as a whole, and the country at large. Overseas they were a very visible contribution to regional security amongst our allies and trading partners. Along with the ‘clapped out’ argument, these benefits were either ignored, downplayed or completely misrepresented to the public by the government at the time.
Myths aside, by now the last RNZAF Skyhawks would have been grounded for a few years anyway. They are history. While the justification for having modern fighter aircraft in NZ is certainly arguable (despite the above I can see it both ways, although at the moment it is a moot point, since there aren’t going to be any flying with Kiwi markings anytime soon), by getting rid of them a statement is being made that not only are they not needed now, they never will be. The ‘benign strategic environment’ status suggested in mid 2001 was arguable at best then, and remains so now.
What is certain is that once gone, it is the kind of capability and skill base that takes years to re-establish if needed (waiting until you actually for-real need it is far too late) and only history will tell if it was the right call or not.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
I wonder how many people will notice the error in the animation of the supersonic run (it's supersonic-by definition you won't hear the car until it has passed you)
Friday, December 09, 2011
And the rock beneath our house probably added to me not feeling this one later that day:
Probably good I didn't feel the first one, since when it hit I was in the site acid store, a small enclosed space with shelves full of big bottles of acids of various kinds. There are certain places I definitely don't want to be in an earthquake and that one is high on the list. Since I happened to be on my feet and moving around I didn't notice the motion, and since I had my mp3 on, I didn't hear any rattling either. My office got a good rattling though according to the people I share it with.
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Occured to me the other day I hadn't heard this in a long, long time:
I was kind of shocked to realise just how old it is now (it was recorded in 1993). A friend of mine who remains very knowledgable about such things (D3vo) introduced me to it circa 1994, and many a great time was had with it as a background throughout the 90's. Lots of good memories :)
I wonder what that baby is up to now.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Here is what it looked like on the local quake drum:
After living here for a while you tend to brush off the small ones. A few seconds of shaking and it's back to whatever you were doing, having spent at least the first one or two seconds deciding if you needed to take shelter in a doorway or under furniture (the bigger shakes tend to make that decision an instant one I have noticed). This one got worse after a few seconds, and when they do that is when you really take notice, usually by wondering "Is this IT, the big one?" in my case.
And then when it stops there is always the period where you are wondering if things are still moving or is it just the adrenalin making you think they are. This was the biggest shake for a while around here.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Since they were retired without replacement in 2001, announcing a deal has been struck to off-load them has become something of a pre-election tradition, with this being the fourth time it has been made, and the third in the run up to polling day. Here is the 2003 version, the 2005 version, and the 2008 version :)
I'm optimistically thinking this time it looks like the deal might actually fly. That they haven't sold yet isn't because they are rubbish or no-one wanted them. There have been other erm, issues at play.
In the meantime back in April the government decided enough was enough and started dispersing some Skyhawks to museums (link). In addition some of the also redundant Aermacchi jet trainers will be going to museums, as well as the now twice retired Strikemasters the Macchis replaced (after retirement from flying some Strikemasters were retained to train ground personnel).
The Museum Of Transport And Technology in Auckland got their Skyhawk about a month ago, and reassembling it for display looked something like this:
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
It isn't the option I voted for, and I don't really like it. It plays to and reinforces an outsider's and negative stereotype of the city (tellingly it was designed by people based in Auckland), and just seems a bit meh. It does tie in to the nearby collection of kinetic sculptures, and isn't the godawful cringe that "Wellywood" would have been, but that is about all the good things I can say about it. Uninspiring.
The second alternative option "Eye of the Taniwha", I thought was much better, not only being more creative and actually designed by a Wellingtonian, but also specific to its exact location.
With "Blown Away" pretty much all you get to say is "Yeah, it gets a bit windy sometimes".
Who knows, it might grow on me and be affectionately regarded one day.
Meanwhile, in another part of town, the Ian Curtis graffiti I've blogged about here and there is doing a good cheshire cat impersonation (link).
Sunday, November 20, 2011
But while the ability to vote is a precious one, gee the weeks leading up to an election can make it hard to appreciate.
Things annoying me about this election in particular:
-"Vote for me/us" billboards everywhere.
-Vandalising of said billboards by people who think they are being funny or making a point. Really they are doing neither; they are just being a dick. When such vandalism is by a well organised activist element of a political party it is even more dickish (and disappointing too), endorsed by the party itself or not. Covering up someone else's free speech with your own is not free speech.
-Media manufactured scandals that distract from the real issues, and give anyone not involved the chance to display hypocritically righteous faux outrage, all the while being grateful it wasn't them being recorded.
-People on social media and other public forums saying "I'm voting for X because I love NZ/democracy/kittens etc" or "If you vote for X you hate NZ/democracy/kittens etc". I don't care who you vote for, just as who I vote for is none of your business.
-The idea that a giant walking ego in a suit might for the third time have the power as an individual to determine the make-up of the next government. Winston Peters is a one-man indictment of the flaws of MMP voting.
-The fact that while I like some policy elements of most parties, they all have policies I don't like enough to make me not want to vote for them, meaning I don't feel particularly represented, and thus cynical about the whole thing. Also while I might not be a particular fan of the incumbents, the opposition don't exactly fill me with confidence either (NZ politics has been lacking in genuinely inspiring individuals and policy for a couple of decades now).
Hopefully I will have made my mind up by next week.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Airfield Rabbit Control Manager
The low cloudbase meant the resident Corsair stayed on the ground, which was a pity since the damp air could have made for some great vapour effects like these.
I see things like this and think, "this really is the future". I like the technology contrast between the 1910's and the 2010's:
Triplane vs Triplane (Sopwith and Fokker):
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
I don't know if it is just me, but every time I see diggers parked up for the night like this atop a pile of spoil they have just created, I think of a kid on a beach proudly displaying their work :)