If NZ gets fighters again, what should we get?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

knightrider4

Active Member
Nobody is doubting NZ's ability to afford an air combat capability perhaps some are questioning if such a small number is indeed for want of a better word worthwile who know's? I guess if available Oz could acquire a small number of F22's but what would be the point? The number being so insignificant as to be tactically useless. Thats just my opinion so I dont upset the airpower buffs.:)
 
E

EnigmaNZ

New Member
The answer is staring us in the face, modern multirole fighter that is also cheap to purchase. The US/Israeli/Russian/Chinese F-10.

The F-10 is said to have capabilities similar to the Su-27, the Russian MiG-29 and the US F-16 fighter jets, but with an estimated cost of less than $10 million, it could rival other jet makers on the international market

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=357

The Chengdu J-10 advanced combat fighter is clearly a product of years of military cooperation between Israel and China, taking much of its design from the now defunct U.S.-Israeli Lavi project
In addition, China has added several features that were directly reverse-engineered from a U.S.-made F-16 Falcon jet fighter provided to Beijing by Pakistan.

The Pakistani F-16, sold to Islamabad during the 1980s, was given to the PLAAF as part of a secret military trade deal between Pakistan and China. In return for the U.S.-made F-16 jet, Pakistan received a deep discount on the purchase of Chinese-made M-11 ballistic missiles.

With friend like these, who needs enemies. But there you are, a poor man's Gripen right down to the canards. And at that price, we'll take 100 thankyou very much.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news095.htm
 
S

Supe

New Member
nz enthusiast said:
The government in a few years is actually going to have no debt what so ever, unlike Australia.
Click to expand...
Actually, Australian Gov under Howard has been in receipt of surpluses in almost every year except one since attaining power.

Australian Government net debt has been reduced from around $96 billion (19.1 per cent of GDP) in 1995-96, to an estimated $6 billion (0.7 per cent of GDP) in 2005-06. Source
Click to expand...
Check this graph on where Australia and NZ stand on reduction of public debt. Both nations are doing quite well. I note the trend in Canada is downwards too.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/overview/image/low_debt-2.gif
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
knightrider4 said:
Nobody is doubting NZ's ability to afford an air combat capability perhaps some are questioning if such a small number is indeed for want of a better word worthwile who know's? I guess if available Oz could acquire a small number of F22's but what would be the point? The number being so insignificant as to be tactically useless. Thats just my opinion so I dont upset the airpower buffs.:)
Click to expand...
A squadron or 2 of fighters from the RNZAF would be welcomed by just about anybody, if they were to re-equip it would be with a reasonably capable aircraft, though probably not "top of the line".

As people point out, with almost no air threat existing to mainland NZ (at this time) such a squadron would be available for deployment at most times, depending on readiness levels etc and would provide a massive boost to any kind of "ANZAC" deployment, with Australia only likely to be able to deploy 1 or 2 squadrons at best itself...

NZ would also have the luxury of being able to choose basically any "Western" combat aircraft and know it could fit in well with the RAAF. The RAAF has exercised (and operated with in actual operations) with a wide variety of Western combat aircraft including all the American teen fighters, French Mirages, British Tornado's, Jaguars and Harriers and have been able to neatly accomodate every different aircraft type into useful and capable force packages.

The RAAF hasn't exercised with the Gripen AFAIK, but it's a modern capable aircraft and shouldn't prove a great problem if NZ were to acquire it...

The RAAF could possibly acquire a reasonable number of F-22's if the political strings to the JSF were cut. It would probably be possible to acquire up to around 24 F-22's and still have money in the bank to round out our fighter force with a larger number of other (cheaper) fighters. I don't think anyone would consider a 24 strong F-22 fleet "tactically useless". Look at the strategic "cred" the RF/F-111 has given us. Guess what the operational number of RF/F-111's is? Any takers?
 
H

Highwayman

New Member
Why and how would NZ get in the air defence business.
In the modern world for effective AD you require ground radar, AEW&C type aircraft and air refuelling capability. For effective deployments they would need lots of support aircraft.
Who are New Zealands potential enemies that have the capability to lauch an air attack against NZ because unless they have an aircraft carrier they would need to be based in Australia.
A lot of the contributors to this thread appear to be spotters who live in a fantasy world.
Unless NZ discovers lots of oil they will never the capabilites you dream of.
NZ does need a few combat aircraft to support the navy in protecting its shores and for training the army and navy in co-operating with combat aircraft provided by wealthier nations in joint operations.
The RNZAF is basically there to support the other services, so have a few fighters but mainly modern transports, helicopters and MR are its priority because they are affordable........
 
E

EnigmaNZ

New Member
If the current Defence budget of about 0.9% of HDP was raised to what it was in 1990, 1.8%, there's an extra $1.2 billion a year, as most would go on capital spending, we could have 50/50 funding spread, thats boasts current operational funding by $250 million, and provides $1.2 billion a year for capital expenditure. It all depends whether you want to put the funding into sending hiphop students to the US to study, fund degrees in flax weaving etc, and other Labour pet projects, or improve our ability to work overseas with our allies without expecting their taxpayers to constantly have to support us in these endeavours.

There is no current external threat to NZ, there will probably be an internal threat at some later time frame from fundamentilist groups intent on extablishing their way of thinking on the world in general. Get your head out of the sand and study their core beliefs if you think this is pessimistic.

What we have to decide is, do we stick to our little corner of the world, pull up the drawbridge and pretend everything is hokey dory, as many left wing governments did in the lead up to WW2, or do we prepare for the worst while working to see it never occurs. If Australia is ever threatened with invasion by it's overcrowded and corrupt neighbour to the north, can we help them, with hardware.

NZ has always fought wars on foreign soil, in doing so we have helped to ensure those wars have been resolved with minimal local intrusion. Remember to, we are a resource to other nations, which is why our harbours were mined by the german auxilary cruiser Orion in WW2, sending several ships to the bottom, why we had german and Japanese submarines in our waters checking our harbours for targets, even though we were at the ends of the earth.

We can afford a better defence force, we have to, we owe it to our foreign friends who we rely on to be able to recipricate. We need to as we are first and foremost a trading nation with long sea and air routes.
 
A

abramsteve

New Member
EnigmaNZ said:
If the current Defence budget of about 0.9% of HDP was raised to what it was in 1990, 1.8%, there's an extra $1.2 billion a year, as most would go on capital spending, we could have 50/50 funding spread, thats boasts current operational funding by $250 million, and provides $1.2 billion a year for capital expenditure. It all depends whether you want to put the funding into sending hiphop students to the US to study, fund degrees in flax weaving etc, and other Labour pet projects, or improve our ability to work overseas with our allies without expecting their taxpayers to constantly have to support us in these endeavours.

There is no current external threat to NZ, there will probably be an internal threat at some later time frame from fundamentilist groups intent on extablishing their way of thinking on the world in general. Get your head out of the sand and study their core beliefs if you think this is pessimistic.

What we have to decide is, do we stick to our little corner of the world, pull up the drawbridge and pretend everything is hokey dory, as many left wing governments did in the lead up to WW2, or do we prepare for the worst while working to see it never occurs. If Australia is ever threatened with invasion by it's overcrowded and corrupt neighbour to the north, can we help them, with hardware.

NZ has always fought wars on foreign soil, in doing so we have helped to ensure those wars have been resolved with minimal local intrusion. Remember to, we are a resource to other nations, which is why our harbours were mined by the german auxilary cruiser Orion in WW2, sending several ships to the bottom, why we had german and Japanese submarines in our waters checking our harbours for targets, even though we were at the ends of the earth.

We can afford a better defence force, we have to, we owe it to our foreign friends who we rely on to be able to recipricate. We need to as we are first and foremost a trading nation with long sea and air routes.
Click to expand...
Your argument is the first that has truly convinced me of NZ's need for fighter aircraft.

The NZ in ANZAC stands for New Zealand which I sometimes forget.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I'll be the second. I've observed in the past that once a politician justify's ridding defence of a particular capability, it's next to impossible to get it back and it's got nothing to do with a defence forces actual requirements either...
 
P

pepsi

New Member
I would still think that national winning would be a plus, simply because they at least seem to want to align themselves more with Australia and the USA than Labour does, so i guess if relations got better then in the future NZ would be in a better position to get some capabilities back

Although that said, i'm not too knowledgable on all their other policies regarding health and stuff like that, so im not sure
 
A

Aardvark Fury

New Member
As an Aussie living in London with a Kiwi girlfriend and a lot of Kiwi friends :D I am struck at how divergent Australian and NZ views are becoming on matters of foreign policy and defence (with the possible exception of this forum).

Although I think there may be some lingering NZ "embarrassment" at the unspoken acknowledgement that the RAAF now provides the de facto NZ air defence capability, the average Kiwi also seems to take some pride in explicitly differentiating NZ from Australia. I guess the closest parallel to this I can think of is the US / Canada relationship. This was brought home during the recent election and some of the comments I read on the BBC website's 'Have your say' section. It was clear any thought of returning to the ANZUS fold was largely anathema to the "average" Kiwi. I think NZ is increasingly beginning to define itself independently from reference to Australia or its past US alliance.

I am genuinely interested in this phenomenon, particularly when you consider the extremely close ties Aus. and NZ have traditionally had in defence matters, and two almost identical cultures. A shared martial tradition (e.g. Gallipoli, North Africa, Pacific, Vietnam etc.) has helped to forge each country's view of itself, and of each other. It seems strange now to see them on such divergent courses. I think this is due to more than just a centre-right government being power in Aus and a centre-left govt. in power in NZ, but represents a more fundamental shift.

To come back onto topic, I was keen to see National win power if only to see how they may have re-aligned foreign policy and defence procurement. I think if an air combat capability was to have been re-acquired, the F-16 would have been the most likely choice. Indeed, I think leased F-16s to replace the A-4s was the plan before Labor came to power. I can't really imagine NZ acquiring any more than 12-18 aircraft, although that would still provide a useful capability.

Or, could we have a RNZAF squadron operating within the RAAF - much like RAAF squadrons operated within the RAF during WW2? :rolleyes: This would at least see a sharing of the air defence burden. Though I imagine this will remain politically unpalatable for many years to come.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Aardvark Fury said:
As an Aussie living in London with a Kiwi girlfriend and a lot of Kiwi friends :D I am struck at how divergent Australian and NZ views are becoming on matters of foreign policy and defence (with the possible exception of this forum).

Although I think there may be some lingering NZ "embarrassment" at the unspoken acknowledgement that the RAAF now provides the de facto NZ air defence capability, the average Kiwi also seems to take some pride in explicitly differentiating NZ from Australia. I guess the closest parallel to this I can think of is the US / Canada relationship. This was brought home during the recent election and some of the comments I read on the BBC website's 'Have your say' section. It was clear any thought of returning to the ANZUS fold was largely anathema to the "average" Kiwi. I think NZ is increasingly beginning to define itself independently from reference to Australia or its past US alliance.

I am genuinely interested in this phenomenon, particularly when you consider the extremely close ties Aus. and NZ have traditionally had in defence matters, and two almost identical cultures. A shared martial tradition (e.g. Gallipoli, North Africa, Pacific, Vietnam etc.) has helped to forge each country's view of itself, and of each other. It seems strange now to see them on such divergent courses. I think this is due to more than just a centre-right government being power in Aus and a centre-left govt. in power in NZ, but represents a more fundamental shift.

To come back onto topic, I was keen to see National win power if only to see how they may have re-aligned foreign policy and defence procurement. I think if an air combat capability was to have been re-acquired, the F-16 would have been the most likely choice. Indeed, I think leased F-16s to replace the A-4s was the plan before Labor came to power. I can't really imagine NZ acquiring any more than 12-18 aircraft, although that would still provide a useful capability.

Or, could we have a RNZAF squadron operating within the RAAF - much like RAAF squadrons operated within the RAF during WW2? :rolleyes: This would at least see a sharing of the air defence burden. Though I imagine this will remain politically unpalatable for many years to come.
Click to expand...
I'd agree on the US/Canada analogy. ;) As for the issue of an embedded NZAF component, that has been suggested in the past. I seem to recall about 5 years ago that probing was done about basing a flight of Hornets in NZ to act as regional support assets. Politically I think that option has long fallen by the wayside unless NZ cops another internal aircraft scare. After all, imagine if someone knocked off a local Lear Jet and decided to do a "Twin Towers" - a police helicopter is going to be useless at intercepting anything except post event pieces falling to the ground.

Re the former, in real terms I see ANZUS as being fundamentally an inert treaty - its more or less useless. The sooner everyone publicly acknowledges that and works out how we intend to move forward either as dispararate pairs, or a reconstituted trio - the better. I've alwasy considered the public NZ stance to be somewhat hypocritical though, the NZ Govt has been quite happy to have USAF, USN and USCG assets rotating out of Christchurch to go to McMurdo and my feeling is that they failed to control the issue of having a an Anti-Nuke stance and let it evolve (in the publics eyes) as a anti-US stance. That clearly is not the case as most of us are aware about how many assets are still in play in NZ at the NZ Govs approval.

As for NZ and Aust - a written treaty is a useless piece of paper IMO. If anyone had a go at NZ we'd be there faster than free beer going off at a wharfies picnic. Those bonds are too tight for any political spats to interrupt.
 
W

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
gf0012-aust said:
I'd agree on the US/Canada analogy. ;) As for the issue of an embedded NZAF component, that has been suggested in the past. I seem to recall about 5 years ago that probing was done about basing a flight of Hornets in NZ to act as regional support assets. Politically I think that option has long fallen by the wayside unless NZ cops another internal aircraft scare. After all, imagine if someone knocked off a local Lear Jet and decided to do a "Twin Towers" - a police helicopter is going to be useless at intercepting anything except post event pieces falling to the ground.

Re the former, in real terms I see ANZUS as being fundamentally an inert treaty - its more or less useless. The sooner everyone publicly acknowledges that and works out how we intend to move forward either as dispararate pairs, or a reconstituted trio - the better. I've alwasy considered the public NZ stance to be somewhat hypocritical though, the NZ Govt has been quite happy to have USAF, USN and USCG assets rotating out of Christchurch to go to McMurdo and my feeling is that they failed to control the issue of having a an Anti-Nuke stance and let it evolve (in the publics eyes) as a anti-US stance. That clearly is not the case as most of us are aware about how many assets are still in play in NZ at the NZ Govs approval.

As for NZ and Aust - a written treaty is a useless piece of paper IMO. If anyone had a go at NZ we'd be there faster than free beer going off at a wharfies picnic. Those bonds are too tight for any political spats to interrupt.
Click to expand...
I agree, the ANZAC relationship is alike a family, we have our spats and rivalry but are always there for each other when the going gets tough. NZ defence policy really is an interesting beast, I have long advocated the following:



  1. The Govt as the peoples elected representatives sets the goals and strategy for the Defence Force, and then sets the budget.
  2. The Defence force then plans, trains and equips to suit that strategy, with the budget it has.
In NZ every major purchase is approved by the Cabinet, which leaves problems of political interference. The decision to select the MRV vessel did not follow the rules, the Ministry of Defence has been criticised for not following their own process and the chief Naval Engineer and several others resigned in protest.



Apparently it was more important to get a less capable ship from an Australian company than a more capable ship built in Korea etc…
 
Jezza

Jezza

Member
Yeah all the pilots will stand on the end of the runway doing the HAKA.
that will scare anyone away :dance3 :kar :dance :p4
 
W

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
rossfrb_1 said:
NZ fast jet requirements could best be served by a flavour of Hawk (200) or AMX.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawk/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/amx/

I suggest these because I'm assuming that they would be significantly cheaper than any F16/Gripen option. They do provide a basic interdiction/strike capability. You would never send them up against a Su-27/30, but then again is NZ ever likely to want to?
Click to expand...
I agree, used more for training the Army in close airsupport and the navy in air defence, it would also keep the RNZAFs hand in the fast jet trade and allow for an expansion in the future if it was deemed needed.

I would buy a dozen Hawks, the same as the RAAF, and tie logistics and training in with the RAAF.
 
P

Pursuit Curve

New Member
nz enthusiast said:
There are elections coming up this year most probably in September. National and NZ First both say they want to get New Zealand air combat capability again as a part of their policys. With the way the polls are going there is a fifity chance that national will win wit ha coalition of NZ First.
So if National gets in with NZ Firsts help, if you were asked to recommend a fighter to them what would it be?
Click to expand...
New Zealand. like any island nation is a large unsinkable aircraft carrier. In my opinion New Zealand should look at a long ranged multi role aircraft that combines respectable Air Defense Capability and Anti Surface warfare. With the large amount of Surplus FA 18C Hornets languishing at Davis Montham ( excuse the spelling) I am sure there is a deal there. Otherwise maybe a buy of F16 C that has operability with USAF, USN, and RAAF F18's systems?

Just day dreaming on your behalf mate :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top