If NZ gets fighters again, what should we get?

Status
Not open for further replies.

pepsi

New Member
If NZ ordered some F35s with Australia's order wouldn't they possibly get them a bit cheaper? or doesn't it work that way, i thought maybe thats the reason the nh90 thing came up after Australia decided on those.

It would have been good if NZ had gone through with that F16 plan from back in 2000, so if that plan was revived it wouldn't be too bad..

Back in the day the F-111 might have been a good choice for NZ wouldn't it? With its long range and all that, but its definately too late now for them to take Australia's.. unless they really want to that is, i wouldnt mind seeing them stick around for a few years after Australia gets the F35 ;)
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
pepsi said:
If NZ ordered some F35s with Australia's order wouldn't they possibly get them a bit cheaper? or doesn't it work that way, i thought maybe thats the reason the nh90 thing came up after Australia decided on those.

It would have been good if NZ had gone through with that F16 plan from back in 2000, so if that plan was revived it wouldn't be too bad..

Back in the day the F-111 might have been a good choice for NZ wouldn't it? With its long range and all that, but its definately too late now for them to take Australia's.. unless they really want to that is, i wouldnt mind seeing them stick around for a few years after Australia gets the F35 ;)
The F-35's are not cheap, new a F-16 is about $US40 million flyaway, I have seen costings on the web that put the F-35 at 2 to 3 times that. We just cannot justify that cost, we don't have Indonesia breathing down our neck.
Building in Australia does not alway mean cheaper, usually dearer but offsets bringing in skills to local industry seen as worth the extra cost. Eg, the ANZACS cost about $US250 million (2000 $) each for a very basic frigate, the South Korean KDX 1, a similar frigate built in SK cost a third less with a better fitout. But yes, joining with Australia can lower costs if built elsewhere, same with any type of bulk buying, the more you buy, the cheaper the item is, whether warships or groceries. Buying with Australia also means we can operate alongside them and use each others spares, operate and maintain each others equipment, and generally intergrate more effectively.

The ex Pakistan F-16 is a no goer. They were older A/B's but late block versions, virtually new as in storage all their life, and were offered for about $200 million (NZ I think) plus the cost of bringing them back online. For 28 fighters it was indeed a good buy. But they are no longer available, they are now being used by the US as "aggressor" squadrons, remember "Topgun" the movie.

The F111 were never a consideration and will never be, too big, too expensive, and now too old, also single role a/c, as we have a small airforce, the fighters it operates have to be multirole. Once you had to buy different types to fufill different roles, eg the strike and fighter version of the Tornado and the Mirage 2000 were offered with different fitouts, different radar etc. The F-16 and F-18 were amazing in their day because one aircraft could function in either role, their radar had both air to air AND air to ground modes built into the same unit.

Most realistic option is about 12 to 18 new F-16's, or 18 to 24 low hours second hand C/D's.
 

seantheaussie

New Member
EnigmaNZ said:
The F-35's are not cheap, new a F-16 is about $US40 million flyaway, I have seen costings on the web that put the F-35 at 2 to 3 times that. We just cannot justify that cost, we don't have Indonesia breathing down our neck.
NZ can safely ignore any Indonesian harassment of Australia but would suffer any successful invasion. As f-35s are a high intensity conflict aircraft if justified for Australia they are justified for our Kiwi cousins who just beat up our British & Irish parents.:D
 

nz enthusiast

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #24
The F-35 is actually designed to be very cheap, so its allies and potential export customers could afford it. The basic version (A) was meant to be $28 mil, the B and C are a bit more expensive.
New Zealand should be able to get its hands on F-35s. There has actually been a bit of discussion about ANZUS and nuclear free at the moment. Helen Clark is basically saying she wants to stay nuke free and she is as close to the US as she wants to be. National wants a referenduem, and wants to get closer to the US. George Bush actually said to Helen Clark that a form of ANZUS could be restored with the anti-nuke legislation still in place. Although we didn't go into Iraq with combat troops we have 30 people there doing rebuilding and we have 100+ in Afghanistan many of them involved in combat. which is probably enough to satisfy the US govt. We also had C-17s here a few weeks back.
I see only NZ politics stopping us from getting F-35s, i do not see finace as a problem.
Jason_kiwi don't u pay attention to poll results? nationals about 5 percent ahead
 

NZSAS

Banned Member
Hello
I would Love to see NZ get Fighters. Possibly 28. That would be wonderful.
Yes National is ahead and they are closely allied with NZFIRST which also want to restore a strike force. In my opinion I do not mind which Fighter NZ gets(if they do, hopefully) any will do.
 

Brit

New Member
I’d say that Mirage 2000-9 (+) seems a realistic option -almost a bargin option given its BVR capabilities with PGM credibility. Or Korean K-50s Golden Eagles. (interesting potential for a small fighter?). Second hand F16s, Tornados or Fa-18A/Cs (ex USN) would be obvious possibilities also. Second hand/older airframes with upgraded avionics or better still new aircraft on lease??? hmmm...
 

Supe

New Member
If one of the political parties proposing reinstituting fighter squadrons actually do so, you can forget Mirages. I think that many Kiwi's would have an antipathy towards procuring French Fighter aircraft. Think Rainbow Warrior and Nuke testing in Mururoa atoll.
 

nz enthusiast

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
Our relationship with France is actually improving, we actually had one of their ships in our ports a while back. but that being said we still wouldn't want to buy from France, the problem that Australia had with their mariage 3's and France and Vietnam is also an issue.
I reckon Sweden actually stands a very high chance at winning with their Saab 39 gripen, the idea of reduced maintaince costs would definely help them, especially because we choose the lav3 instead of the british warrior because of maintaince cost. also we are as close politically as possible as you can be with Sweden without being a member of the EU, due to Sweden neutrality. There are many links that our countries have which could lead to a strong relationship in the future.
 

Brit

New Member
Thanks for setting me straight re the Mirage option. What about 'Super' AMXs from Brazil? Just playing with the less obvious choices and I'm guessing that AG is key to NZ's (unofficial) requirements....
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
For those interested in the debate over the ex Pakistani F16 A/B's we almost acquired including costings etc see these site, also the political wangling that went on. There is a lot of reading, so i haven't cut and pasted it.

http://www.executive.govt.nz/f16/index.html
http://www.defence.govt.nz/public_docs/aircombat/4-air-combat-force.shtml
http://www.synapsis.co.nz/herald/Herald_2000/Herald_F16s_extra_Feb_05_00.htm

This is a site for a minor political party that Labour needs to help it maintain it's numbers in parliment. These are some of the comments within the site.

"The Greens believe our naval combat forces, in the form of the frigates, are also superfluous to our needs and should also be sold in order for us to upgrade and invest in Hercules, helicopters, field equipment, land transport vehicles and top of the line peacekeeping equipment.
Arguments that we need jet fighters and frigates - only useful for major war confrontation - are based on old World War Two or Cold War scenarios, or on keeping other nations like Australia or the United States happy."


http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR3134.html
 

Brit

New Member
In some respects the Greens have a valid point, particularly in the current political situation. But i think that they're being short sighted. If it's ever need, frontline combat aircraft isn't the sort of thing you can acquire overnight. You can buy a shipment of rifles and being firing them the next day, but not combat aircraft, not even in war situations where corners are cut. But then we all knew that...
 
Last edited:

Supe

New Member
I detest the sort of insular short-sighted 'vision' these people seem to have an excess of. They live in a fantasy land, not the grim realities that leaders of Nations are faced with. A case of living in a world they think it should be; not as it is.

Green MP Keith Locke wants New Zealand to join Indonesia in protesting Australia’s plan to purchase long-range cruise missiles.

“South-East Asian nations are justifiably nervous about Australia purchasing long-range cruise missiles,†said Mr Locke, the Green Party’s Defence Spokesperson.

“New Zealand should strongly object to Australia starting an expensive and destabilising arms race in our region.

“Buying such offensive weapons will also inevitably undermine coordination and relations between our armed forces. For instance, the more that Australia’s Orion fleet is configured to attack its northern neighbours, the less they will be able to work with our Orions in legitimate activities such as fisheries protection.

link
There is already an arms race within the region. Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore are all upgrading and modernising their forces. Indonesia is looking at modernising its Navy and Airforce. The Australian government naturally enough, has to shape and implement policies to reflect that. As always, we live in an age of uncertainty and in a region with a history of instability.

A policy of 'timidity' as Locke's comments on the matter suggest, is fraught with danger. A nation's security and sovereignty is determined to a large extent to how capable a deterent the military of that nation is. While the Australian gov should exercise tact, there will be times when the Gov has to do what is in the national self interests. That's not always going to go down well with some folks. Locke can get away with these comments because he and NZ haven't had to deal with threats to sovereignty and security as Australia and other nations have. He misses the context that frames why Australia chooses to buy weapons platforms it does and why the gov maintains a defence alliance with the U.S. Without the context, there can be no understanding. Locke and the Green party are not at all credible when it comes to issues of defence either for NZ or Australia. It's head in the sand time for those folks when it comes to matters of Defence.
 

nz enthusiast

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #33
You guys should also know that the greens want to legalise canabis, lower the drinking and smoking age (currently at 18). They to run NZ on no power sources, they object to almost all the propsed wind and hydro power schemes, which will soon begin to screw us up into a third world country. They want to increase the tax on rich people to the point they make the same amount as lazy people with no jobs.
the greens are just a group of stupid hippies who just want to destroy the country
So now the greens support dictatorships (indonesia), but why then do they want to rid world of dictators, you can't do that without force.I actually believe that New Zealand needs very strong naval combat capability after all we are sea locked, not land locked. SO in my view i don't see the point in 105 lavs, i would prefer to change the army into marines and use the convoy them in multi role vessels., possibly with fighter support.
The greens can't actually think any further ahead until they next smoke their crack, hopefully there stupid ideas will rid from government this year.
Sorry mods if you are offended by my politics but i am willing to get banned for a while for it.
 

Brit

New Member
nz enthusiast said:
You guys should also know that the greens want to legalise canabis, lower the drinking and smoking age (currently at 18). They to run NZ on no power sources, they object to almost all the propsed wind and hydro power schemes, which will soon begin to screw us up into a third world country. They want to increase the tax on rich people to the point they make the same amount as lazy people with no jobs.
the greens are just a group of stupid hippies who just want to destroy the country
So now the greens support dictatorships (indonesia), but why then do they want to rid world of dictators, you can't do that without force.I actually we are sea locked, not land locked. SO in my view i don't see the point in 1believe that New Zealand needs very strong naval combat capability after all 05 lavs, i would prefer to change the army into marines and use the convoy them in multi role vessels., possibly with fighter support.
The greens can't actually think any further ahead until they next smoke their crack, hopefully there stupid ideas will rid from government this year.
Sorry mods if you are offended by my politics but i am willing to get banned for a while for it.
I think that this isn't the best place to mix politics on this particular level.
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
True this is not a political thread, but the intent here is to show what is happening in NZ politically on the defence front. All the talk in the world about purchasing this fighter or that hardware has to be seen in this current climate, it's simply is not possible at present, the Greens can be very vocal in the local media, they have also campaigned extensively to remove the Spy bases here as well.

"The Waihopai spy base in Marlborough is being used as part of an alleged dirty tricks campaign by the United States to spy on fellow United Nations members, says Green MP Keith Locke. "

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=3198992

But the Greens are part of the Governing party at present so have some influence on defence discision making. There will be no changes to the current defence doctrine unless we have a right wing shift in september's elections.
One thing is certain, any talk of hi end fighters is pissing in the wind, F16C/D's are the most capable, widely used and polically accepted aircraft we can hope for. F22's are now costing the US over $350 million a copy, and with each cut in orders, the price goes up. The F35 looks like it is going the same way. The government, if it changes, can't afford more than about a billion for any new fighters, hence late model F16's will enable a couple of squadrons to be formed, anything more expensive will cut into numbers making them a token gesture. Remember the AF has some big ticket replacements due from 2015, at which time the fighters need to have been paid off. They are the replacements for the Hercules and the Orions, the latter is going to be expensive. Also the Macchi's if we want to continue training our pilots ourselves. The Navy too will be looking at replacing the Resolution, Manawanui and Endeavour. Going back to the 2010 to 2015 timeframe, the forces light weapons need replacing, as well as the howitzers, the Frigates will be due for their midlife refits and upgrades, and we know weapons and electronics make up half of a warships costs, so this is a big ticket item.
So to summarise, 12 to 18 new or low hour second hand F16 C/D's is the most realistic option I can see the government taking, if we have a change this year.
As an aside, governments here run 3 year terms and tend to last 2 terms on average, so we could be looking at a labour government again by the time we are due to begin planning to replace the Hercules and Orions.
Secondly, the right wing parties also have a history of running the defence forces down as well, so all the promises in opposition are just that until implemented.
 
Last edited:

cherry

Banned Member
I would definately be opting for at least 20 F-16s of the latest block, but only if weapons such as JASSM and SDB can be fitted onto them in the near future. Other improvements NZ armed forces should push for is a purchase of 2-3 high altitude UAVs to supplement the Orions, whatever us Aussies decide to buy (either Global Hawk or Predator). An idea for pilot training is to have NZ pilots train on Aussie Hawks to save dollars and share costs?

NZ Army should be pushing for a UAV capacity, again jumping on board with the Aussies when we decide on our Jp129. The combined arms approach should also be taken thus needing additional LAVIII with the 105mm gun, a new self-propelled howitzer, and around 8 Tiger ARH. A small fleet of the Aussie Bushmaster vehicle might also prove valuable for some peace keeping missions and higher mobility.

NZ Navy needs to upgrade their ANZAC frigates to the same standard as the Aussies, making them more effective and survivable in war time. The two new OPVs need a larger main gun, possibly a 3 inch gun. They should also be fitted out with Harpoons missiles and SAM such as RAM. The new MRV should also have this SAM for self protection.

I don't understand why NZ and Australia don't work more closely together and purchase equipment at the same time and share costs.
 

Supe

New Member
I don't understand why NZ and Australia don't work more closely together and purchase equipment at the same time and share costs.
Differing doctrines and ideologies dominate Defence thinking in both countries. NZ Gov doesn't have an interest in obtaining weapons platforms/systems outside of a bare minimum and only in the context of 'Peacekeeping' and protection of economic zone. That leaves the 'peacemaking' to other nations.
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
cherry said:
I would definately be opting for at least 20 F-16s of the latest block, but only if weapons such as JASSM and SDB can be fitted onto them in the near future. Other improvements NZ armed forces should push for is a purchase of 2-3 high altitude UAVs to supplement the Orions, whatever us Aussies decide to buy (either Global Hawk or Predator). An idea for pilot training is to have NZ pilots train on Aussie Hawks to save dollars and share costs?

NZ Army should be pushing for a UAV capacity, again jumping on board with the Aussies when we decide on our Jp129. The combined arms approach should also be taken thus needing additional LAVIII with the 105mm gun, a new self-propelled howitzer, and around 8 Tiger ARH. A small fleet of the Aussie Bushmaster vehicle might also prove valuable for some peace keeping missions and higher mobility.

NZ Navy needs to upgrade their ANZAC frigates to the same standard as the Aussies, making them more effective and survivable in war time. The two new OPVs need a larger main gun, possibly a 3 inch gun. They should also be fitted out with Harpoons missiles and SAM such as RAM. The new MRV should also have this SAM for self protection.

I don't understand why NZ and Australia don't work more closely together and purchase equipment at the same time and share costs.
Fully agree with you cherry, but I am not minister of defence :( What can I say.
 

pepsi

New Member
I was just curious why NZ chose the F-16's in the first place, i thought maybe a more suitable aircraft might have been the F/A-18.. Would they have overlooked that because Australia already had them, because one of those articles linked earlier in the thread, i read that it said the F-16s would have filled big holes in Australias air defence..

Also, if that is the case, lets just say for example Australia's aircrafts didn't have any effect on the decision, would they have still gone for the F-16's?
 

pepsi

New Member
cherry said:
Other improvements NZ armed forces should push for is a purchase of 2-3 high altitude UAVs to supplement the Orions, whatever us Aussies decide to buy (either Global Hawk or Predator).
I think we already ordered 20 Global Hawks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top