Is NZ correct in scrapping the combat component of the RNZAF?

[Wooki]

During this ten year's LTDP New Zealand is spending over $4 billion in New Zealand dollars. In the next ten year LTDP New Zealand is facing spending up to $3 billion in New Zealand dollars just to replace the five Hercules and six Orions. As it is New Zealand is spending $352 million to upgrade their six Orions and $256 million to upgrade their five Hercules, with another $16 million and $12 million respectively for their self defence upgrades.

Adding newly built aircraft for one squadron of F-16s would currently cost over a $1 billion, two squadrons $2 billion in New Zealand dollars. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out air force jets and aircraft are very expensive compared to naval patrol ships and army vehicles. To afford an air combat force in the next ten years LTDP would force New Zealand to almost double their capital expenditures.

...And?

A balanced force for the moment means acquiring air cover. There have been many cost-effective aerial solutions that have cropped up in NZ by New Zealanders that came to naught through lack of funding. It seems like a good time to dust off a few of those ideas, such as an indigenous ground attack craft. Who knows, you could see a world class UCAV come out of it at a cost that would embarrass the rest of the world's major defense vendors.

I seem to remember a twin engined armored "ultra light" sporting ten 0.50 caliber HMGs at a cost of 11500 USD. Just the bees knees for supplying air cover over a Southern Pacific Island flare up where a small force of New Zealanders are deployed. Heck, you could transport it on an Anzac frigate.

Mace engineering in Christchurch is another one with their pivotal 2 stroke engine. Two x the horsepower for the same weight as a four stroke engine. Make it with Ti and you suddenly get 2 x the horsepower for half the weight or 4:1 power to weight ratio over a four stroke engine.

An excellent light aircraft/helicopter VTOL/UAV, UAV engine, not to mention head and shoulders above the LAV III powerplant.

cheers

W

 

[Big-E]

Unfortunately, another thread has been completely hijacked. This thread dealing with New Zealand has been hijacked to both an American CIA and Chinese aggression thread, neither of which sets New Zealand defence policies.

The American comparisons are off topic but Chinese aggression is definetly relavent.

Anyway all those examples I condsider to be illegitamate rule except for 2 and those guys needed to be taken out.

 

[Gibbo]

During this ten year's LTDP New Zealand is spending over $4 billion in New Zealand dollars. In the next ten year LTDP New Zealand is facing spending up to $3 billion in New Zealand dollars just to replace the five Hercules and six Orions. As it is New Zealand is spending $352 million to upgrade their six Orions and $256 million to upgrade their five Hercules, with another $16 million and $12 million respectively for their self defence upgrades.

Adding newly built aircraft for one squadron of F-16s would currently cost over a $1 billion, two squadrons $2 billion in New Zealand dollars. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out air force jets and aircraft are very expensive compared to naval patrol ships and army vehicles. To afford an air combat force in the next ten years LTDP would force New Zealand to almost double their capital expenditures.

Yes is indeed spending what is, for us, historically large sums on the NZDF. Relatively little of that is on sharp-end capability (refer LTDP), however there is also much back-end capability in such dire-need of replacement that this is rightly also being addressed.

Defence force pay-rates & allowances; base & housing infrastructure; things as simple as this drive a successful force & without them even the most technically advanced force would soon grind to a halt. These are the things that the current Labour Govt is primarily addressing with much of the additonal funding - so don't expect to see any significant sharp-end toys coming out of this. The LTDP is a 'rolling' 10 year doc but nothing on it is a certainty - it is in actual fact only a planning tool, albeit it a fairly accurate plan of what will be purchased.

The Labour Govt has shown itself prepared to spend bucks if the need is proven (eg: LAVIII's & Javelin pretty much come out of NZDF's Bosnia experiences mid-1990's). They are also finally restoring a dedicated Patrol Fleet for the RNZN after the cuts of the last 15 years - finally Project protector will deliver capability to actually aptrol our own EEZ on a regular basis - staggering as that may sound, it indicates the state of the NZDF until recently!

But Labour also has a thinly-veiled dislike of maintaining a fully combat capable tri-service NZDF, both on grounds of cost & on philosophical principles. Cool - they sort out the back-end stuff, National eventually gets in & sorts out the front-end! Actually it's unlikely IMHO as they revolve their entire political posture around spending cuts to pay form tax cuts!..and given that it is them who instigated the savage 1990's cuts!!!

IMHO I see a combat air-wing as history - the cost to re-establish would be immenase as it would require the aircraft; lead-in training fleet; all new infratructure; and years of training to regain what we lost! Yes idealistically we (NZ) could 'afford' it, but in reality it's not going to win votes & is not going to gaintraction - unless this part of the worl turns serriously ugly - in which case we ain't got a hope in hell of establishing an effective combat air-wing in time.

I'd rather NZ focus on a small but highly trained & well equipped rapid-reaction force (maybe batallion strength!?!) that can not only operate closely with allies; but can also operate independently - at least at the tactical level (eg: East Timor experience 1999-2001).

This requires Naval support (we're most of the way there with the MRV on it's way, and the Frigates - if upgraded) and air-support from an enlarged & better equipped transport fleet, better equipped MPA fleet; and a small fleet of top-of-the-line ARH to provide deployed troop cover & recon.

Then of course there's all the ISR; anti-air capapbilty etc etc that's far from being adequately addressed. No mention of UAV's anywhere in LTDP or other plans I notice!

Yep - what I'd like is a small but sharp force that can deploy itself; support itself; and withdraw itself in lower threat sceanrios and can operate as an effective force-multiplier for allied forces in more significant operations with higher threat! The key being 'force-multiplier' & not a 'ball & chain' as were often are at present.

Even if everything on the current LTDP (dated 2004) was purchased the NZDF would still only be capable of operating largely as a 2nd line support force in all but the lowest level combat operations. I'd like us to be able to operate as a 1st line unit in those situations. This doesn't mean we replicate the ADF as it will look in 20 years - it generally means we improve the capability we've already got, with a few obvious additions (ARH; ISR etc).

The NZDF is small so the cost of providing a small-force with top gear is consequently lower - and given the huge govt surpluses at present, we could afford to create a highly trained, highly capable mobile force....starting to sound like a Marines type force all the time eh!?!

Oh yeah...and please can we not hijack this thread with USA vs China sniping? Yes it has some relevance to topic, but a previous thread on NZDF got shutdown because of the same sort of arguments going all septic!

 

[Big-E]

IMHO I see a combat air-wing as history - the cost to re-establish would be immenase as it would require the aircraft; lead-in training fleet; all new infratructure; and years of training to regain what we lost! Yes idealistically we (NZ) could 'afford' it, but in reality it's not going to win votes & is not going to gaintraction - unless this part of the worl turns serriously ugly - in which case we ain't got a hope in hell of establishing an effective combat air-wing in time.

Thank you. This is my point exactly. Once it's gone it's not coming back.

PS How many javelines did you order?

 

[KH-12]

IMHO I see a combat air-wing as history - the cost to re-establish would be immenase as it would require the aircraft; lead-in training fleet; all new infratructure; and years of training to regain what we lost! Yes idealistically we (NZ) could 'afford' it, but in reality it's not going to win votes & is not going to gaintraction - unless this part of the worl turns serriously ugly - in which case we ain't got a hope in hell of establishing an effective combat air-wing in time.

The lead-in training fleet still exists, the 16 flyable MB339 (which are still flown on a regular basis) as the proposed sale of these and the A4's does'nt look like it is going to eventuate it would'nt be too hard to reinstate them in a light attack role and at lest maintain a degree of competency in this role within the RNZAF, this would make it easier to bring back a full capability at a later date and in the meantime provide a good training program and limited offensive role.

 

[Big-E]

The lead-in training fleet still exists, the 16 flyable MB339 (which are still flown on a regular basis) as the proposed sale of these and the A4's does'nt look like it is going to eventuate it would'nt be too hard to reinstate them in a light attack role and at lest maintain a degree of competency in this role within the RNZAF, this would make it easier to bring back a full capability at a later date and in the meantime provide a good training program and limited offensive role.

Double poster!

Through my experience when a MOD has offered the sale of platforms they have no plans on using them at any point. By the time the proposed threats come around these aircraft would be inoperable and I doubt MOD will take the expence to maintain something they have no intention of using.

 

[Todjaeger]

The lead-in training fleet still exists, the 16 flyable MB339 (which are still flown on a regular basis) as the proposed sale of these and the A4's does'nt look like it is going to eventuate it would'nt be too hard to reinstate them in a light attack role and at lest maintain a degree of competency in this role within the RNZAF, this would make it easier to bring back a full capability at a later date and in the meantime provide a good training program and limited offensive role.

I was unaware that the MB-339 & A-4 were still in NZ, since the RNZAF has removed them from the website. If there are MB-339 still flying in NZ, that would actually make my idea of a third training squadron that is joint RAAF & RNZAF a bit easier. It would certainly allow for the reformation of a training & light attack unit.

As for comparing New Zealand to Ireland, in many respects the comparison falls flat. Granted, both are predominantly English speaking developed countries with a fairly high development and have approximately the same sized population. Both nations also have somewhat similar climate and terrain (NZ is more mountainous) However, there are a number of differences that play a role in the security situation being different. One is that Ireland has about a quarter of the land area of NZ and consequently a smaller EEZ as well. The others, major differences are that the nations near Ireland are closer than for NZ, and more importantly, they are stable, developed nations.
Stable, developed nations tend not to engage in hostilities amongst each other unless that are fighting a full-blow war. Not to mention if some European nation did decide to make war on Ireland there is a good chance that the US and other NATO nations would step in since it is frowned on when nations attack or invade each other, especially neutral nations.

Many of the nations in the Pacific region NZ is in are best described as unstable and/or developing. Granted, neither Australia or Singapore fits that description, but after those two, NZ would be next in influence in the region. Also, NZ is one of three nations that is guaranteeing the sovereignty of other nations (see the FPDA) in the region as well as the Australia-New Zealand provision of the ANZUS treaty. To that end, NZ is obligated to respond if/when Malaysia, Singapore or Australia is attacked as well as if NZ itself was threatened. With the present assets & equipment of the NZDF, it would be hard pressed to fufil it's treaty obligations should it need to. It would become even more difficult if any hostile power decided to block NZ from contributing forces. All it would take is one or two frigate sized vessels cruising off NZ's west coast. Any troop shipment would be halted until enough of an escort could be assembled to protect the troops or an attack could be launched against the frigates.

As for the likelihood of such a situation, it is definately a possibility. Indonesia doesn't have the most stable of governments. China has been mentioned before and I'll mention it again. While many Chinese might like the rest of the world, please remember both the Cultural Revolution of the Sixties and the footage shot in Beijing outside western embassies following the accidental bombing of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, 1999. While the US had appologized for the error, and people in Hong Kong (which has greater access to outside information) were aware that the US had admitted it was an error the government had not allowed the appology to be disseminated to most of the people, instead keeping tight control of the information. Also, while the economic model China is now following is basically capitalism, the political/governmental model is not. And it is the government who decides to deploy troops. Given the growing demand for energy in China, control of energy resources in the region, and/or shipping lanes to other energy rich areas like the Persian Gulf could become an issue in the future. If China was sticking to a predominantly coastal or patrol based navy, it would be less of a concern. By working on developing a large sub fleet and a blue water navy, that is all indicative of plans for power projection. Now, China being able to project power might never be an issue, it all depends on what the PROC decides to.

BTW I believe that NZ has approximately 24 Javelin launchers, don't know how many missles, since I think they go for around $100k a pop (bang!)

 

[Sea Toby]

Considering New Zealand defence forces needs, which capability of the ten below would you rate as the most important, being first on your list. Since there are other possible choices available, if you think another choice should be rated first please state it. This is how I rate them. Priorities! Adding an air combat force won't necessary provide balance.
a. Hercules replacements
b. Orion replacements
c. a third frigate
d. a third motorized infantry regiment
e. Minehunters
f. submarine capability
g. a tank regiment
h. a rapid reaction battalion
i. a jet trainer force only
j. an air combat force of fighters and trainers
k. land based SAMs

 

[Wooki]

...I'd rather NZ focus on a small but highly trained & well equipped rapid-reaction force (maybe batallion strength!?!) that can not only operate closely with allies; but can also operate independently - at least at the tactical level (eg: East Timor experience 1999-2001).

This requires Naval support (we're most of the way there with the MRV on it's way, and the Frigates - if upgraded) and air-support from an enlarged & better equipped transport fleet, better equipped MPA fleet; and a small fleet of top-of-the-line ARH to provide deployed troop cover & recon.

Then of course there's all the ISR; anti-air capapbilty etc etc that's far from being adequately addressed. No mention of UAV's anywhere in LTDP or other plans I notice!

Yep - what I'd like is a small but sharp force that can deploy itself; support itself; and withdraw itself in lower threat sceanrios and can operate as an effective force-multiplier for allied forces in more significant operations with higher threat! The key being 'force-multiplier' & not a 'ball & chain' as were often are at present...

I agree, and that is why I wrote it is a great opportunity for the NZDF. I was going to say you need 3 converted merchant v/ls to provide sea lift, but I see you already have the MRV. Going RORO is a bit of a mistake IMHO given that most of NZ operations are going to be in the South Pacific.

I would have gone with a cheaper and more damage tolerant LOLO self discharger option with 2 cranes and SP floating pontoon hatches capable of lifting 100 tons each. You still could have had your helo capability if you used the maersk single crane config that powers up and down the deck and stows itself as part of the accommodation e.g. above the helo hangar. Load directly onto the pontoons and then have them motor into the beach. That sort of operation allows you to unload (not load) cargo in relatively high sea states (in fact very high states if you reduce the cargo per lift) while maintaining water tight integrity and oh, it would have cost about 24 million USD as opposed to being ripped off with the 100 million USD Tenix solution.

Going LOLO also gives you independence of operation. I.E. RORO you need a forklift and forklifts on ROROs break down (mainly from flat tires by running over lashing points) all the time, its just one more movement in the chain and becomes very inefficient and very expensive (as in lost time).

Also there are not many RORO berths in the South Pacific so you are going to encounter problems there. But I guess they are hoping the "ship's boat" is going to handle that, right?

I hope you see the point. A RORO is designed for operations at a berth that can support it and using a ship's boat should be a "just in case" scenario, but for reasons mentioned above it will become the norm. You should see what a little boat like that does when you roll 80 tons onto it in one move.

Right idea, wrong execution.

Now, if you wanted a true MRV, I would have gone with a heavy lift ship and then you could make cheap 15000 ton modules to float on and off it as you saw fit like a hospital module, a VTOL vehicle module, a patrol module, a cargo module, etc.

That would be far more relevant to NZs capability and mission then having a RORO which you can't use to full effect and cost about the same (100 million USD).

I'm not sure why nobody else ( Australia) has not picked up on that, particularly after the Indian Ocean Tsunami.

Anyway, I think a Rapid reaction contingent is a good idea of about brigade level with 1 or 2 attached CV90-120 companies (16 tanks each), 2 because NZ has 2 islands and you never know.

...
a. Hercules replacements
b. Orion replacements
c. a third frigate
d. a third motorized infantry regiment
e. Minehunters
f. submarine capability
g. a tank regiment
h. a rapid reaction battalion
i. a jet trainer force only
j. an air combat force of fighters and trainers
k. land based SAMs

Why do you need herqs? Wouldn't C27Js be enough and perhaps cheaper? re maritime surveillance I would go UAV and mine hunters are very useful little boats that nobody needs until you get struck by a ww2 mine while conducting your disembarkation, to support the new Tongan government scenario, eh?

Complicated issues which I don't have the time to do justice, so you'll have to forgive me.

cheers

W

 

[Aussie Digger]

Considering New Zealand defence forces needs, which capability of the ten below would you rate as the most important, being first on your list. Since there are other possible choices available, if you think another choice should be rated first please state it. This is how I rate them. Priorities! Adding an air combat force won't necessary provide balance.
a. Hercules replacements
b. Orion replacements
c. a third frigate
d. a third motorized infantry regiment
e. Minehunters
f. submarine capability
g. a tank regiment
h. a rapid reaction battalion
i. a jet trainer force only
j. an air combat force of fighters and trainers
k. land based SAMs

A third motorised infantry battalion plus support elements would seem to be the most pressing capability from that list. I don't think NZ requires tracked armour, subs or a dedicated air combat or jet trainer force.

As stated in earlier posts, the ability to conduct concurrent and sustainable operations is a pressing issue for NZ in my opinion and this necessitates additional investment in capabilities including: Infantry battalions, a third frigate (I don't like the referral to a 3rd "ANZAC" frigate as such a thing CANNOT be obtained anymore. The build program has ended. A similar capability could be obtained, but it'd be significantly different to NZ's existing frigates) and greater airlift capacity.

Wooki, my understanding is that C-27's have a pretty limited payload/range issue capability compared to a C-130H? Given NZ's isolation it might be a little bit too incapable. I'd prefer NZ invested in some additional C-130H's and then upgrade them. A force of 8, plus the 2x B-757's would provide a pretty reasonable level of capability for a force of NZ's size.

 

[Waylander]

What would you think of NZ purchasing some UAVs for maritime patrol like some european countrys do with buying the Eurohawk?
This should drop the operating costs for constant patrols of the NZ sea.

BTW, were has the button "Show last unread threads"? gone?

 

[Big-E]

What would you think of NZ purchasing some UAVs for maritime patrol like some european countrys do with buying the Eurohawk?
This should drop the operating costs for constant patrols of the NZ sea.

BTW, were has the button "Show last unread threads"? gone?

Why don't they launch some weather balloons with cameras? Thats all the money their going to spend.:

 

[Wooki]

Why don't they launch some weather balloons with cameras? Thats all the money their going to spend.:

I think people are missing the point here.

If NZ has removed their air combat ability then that means the NZDF immediately takes on a defensive posture.

To paraphrase SUN-TZU, "To win you must make yourself invincible and the opposing force must make themselves vulnerable", right?

So for NZ to win in any conflict, they must be the defender and go to ground and hope the attcker makes himself vulnerable.

If you follow that philosophy, then NZ is in a pretty good place simply because of their geography. And following that train of thought a submarine is the logical way to go for NZ to help make the enemy vulnerable (by removing sea-based airpower essential to an invasion through sinking a few Av gas buggies...not the actual carrier, come on)

But what is NZ trying to do?

It sounds like they are trying to project influence and contribute to their neighbor's operations.

If that is the case then this thread should really be about the weakness of the neighboring allies (Australia and Singapore (to a lesser extent)) and how NZ can strengthen those weaknesses.

A no brainer is logistical support as AD alluded to when I asked the question about C27Js.

The MRV follows that line of thought.

I would suggest the acquisition and organization of CV90-120's (as mentioned before) into companies so they can be attached to an Australian light infantry battalion to "harden it up", would IMHO, be one good way to go.

More sealift capability through 2 LOLOs to compliment the existing MRV and Australian assets.

Basing Singapore Fighters in New Zealand instead of the USA.

3 Long range high persistence UAV's like the aerovironment Helios (20 million a copy with support) or your run of the mill global hawk that can supply intel to NZ and its Allies.

and if you really want to get serious, some submarines (3) that can leverage that intel and attack enemy supply lines, but the UAV must come first.

cheers

W

 

[Gibbo]

Why don't they launch some weather balloons with cameras? Thats all the money their going to spend.:

Groan - don't laugh, if our Green Party were in power that's exactly what the would do! I cringed recently when I stumbled onto one of their blogs - one of the greenies was saying our forthcoming OPV's looked too military like - too much like a frigate! :eek

Okay I happen to like their design but they're nothing more than a CoastGuard spec vessel painted grey with a 25mm pop-gun! If they think that's a seriously military piece of hardware then hell, breakout the dope & we'll all dance merry-hell around the maypole & solve the world's problems while taling in tongues! :lol3

...okay, sorry greenies & anyone else who takes offence, but it was a kinda naive statement!

 

[Gibbo]

Through my experience when a MOD has offered the sale of platforms they have no plans on using them at any point. By the time the proposed threats come around these aircraft would be inoperable and I doubt MOD will take the expence to maintain something they have no intention of using.

Yeah MB-339 are still in NZ alongwith the A-4K's. Neither is going anywhere fast - all are wrapped (sealed) in a hangar at RNZAF's maintenance base (Woodbourne). All A4's are grounded, i'm not aware of any Macchi's still doing runs, think that's been stopped too.

RNZAF no longer has the personnel nor facilities to operate these fleets, and the Govt will work damned hard to ensure they never get the chance to use them again either. The govt's been continually reminded they have egg on their faces with regard to their inability in 4.5 years to find a buyer & at considerable ongoing storage cost. Believe me, this Govt will NEVER let those aircraft fly in NZ again, it's become a point of principle for them!

Nor has the National party (main opposition) ever so much as even suggested they'd re-activate them - they know full well the cost involved! Best hope NZDF has is to convince a future Govt that ARH are the way to go. Tigers such as those Aussie are buying would be an incredibly sensible purchase but on rough figures i've seen I reckon thay'e cost NZ NZ$100M each - it would take a pretty sharp argument to push that through our fractured parliament (you know the coalition type arrangements where the tail wags the dog!).

We will in the not too distant future have a new training chopper fleet (type unknown) plus the NH-90's for Utility, so an ARH fleet would actually be a realistic option, although granted chopper costs outstrip strike / fighter airframes. At least we could then provide a fairly well balanced land force in the field, albeit with all the other necessaries req'd first (ISR etc).

Trouble in NZ is no-one here's really ever understood the concept of invasion, so we've never tailored our forces to actually be able to defend our shores.

The NZDF has generally always been designed to run-off & play war somewhere else in the world. That's probably the most realistic outlook for NZ but if we ever got serious about defending ourselves, then I've always suggested a submarine force would be by far the most effective approach. trouble is you say that to the avearge kiwi and not only do you get laughed out of the room, they'd suggest you need sedation!

 

[KH-12]

Yeah MB-339 are still in NZ alongwith the A-4K's. Neither is going anywhere fast - all are wrapped (sealed) in a hangar at RNZAF's maintenance base (Woodbourne). All A4's are grounded, i'm not aware of any Macchi's still doing runs, think that's been stopped too.

RNZAF no longer has the personnel nor facilities to operate these fleets, and the Govt will work damned hard to ensure they never get the chance to use them again either. The govt's been continually reminded they have egg on their faces with regard to their inability in 4.5 years to find a buyer & at considerable ongoing storage cost. Believe me, this Govt will NEVER let those aircraft fly in NZ again, it's become a point of principle for them!

Nor has the National party (main opposition) ever so much as even suggested they'd re-activate them - they know full well the cost involved! Best hope NZDF has is to convince a future Govt that ARH are the way to go. Tigers such as those Aussie are buying would be an incredibly sensible purchase but on rough figures i've seen I reckon thay'e cost NZ NZ$100M each - it would take a pretty sharp argument to push that through our fractured parliament (you know the coalition type arrangements where the tail wags the dog!).

We will in the not too distant future have a new training chopper fleet (type unknown) plus the NH-90's for Utility, so an ARH fleet would actually be a realistic option, although granted chopper costs outstrip strike / fighter airframes. At least we could then provide a fairly well balanced land force in the field, albeit with all the other necessaries req'd first (ISR etc).

Trouble in NZ is no-one here's really ever understood the concept of invasion, so we've never tailored our forces to actually be able to defend our shores.

The NZDF has generally always been designed to run-off & play war somewhere else in the world. That's probably the most realistic outlook for NZ but if we ever got serious about defending ourselves, then I've always suggested a submarine force would be by far the most effective approach. trouble is you say that to the avearge kiwi and not only do you get laughed out of the room, they'd suggest you need sedation!

Pretty sure that the MB339's are stored at Ohakea (the A4's are at Blenheim), and are flown on a fairly regular basis to keep them in airworthy condition, the A4's are just subject to an occasional engine start. I have had the odd MB339 fly past me while flying around the central Nth Island / Sth Waikato area in the recent past.

Can't imagine an ARH would be a starter, they are normally an asset you have in addition to a strike platform not instead of.

 

[Todjaeger]

Considering New Zealand defence forces needs, which capability of the ten below would you rate as the most important, being first on your list. Since there are other possible choices available, if you think another choice should be rated first please state it. This is how I rate them. Priorities! Adding an air combat force won't necessary provide balance.
a. Hercules replacements
b. Orion replacements
c. a third frigate
d. a third motorized infantry regiment
e. Minehunters
f. submarine capability
g. a tank regiment
h. a rapid reaction battalion
i. a jet trainer force only
j. an air combat force of fighters and trainers
k. land based SAMs

Of the list, I agree some are needed. Others are feasible, and still others are unfeasible or unwise.

A. Hercules replacements: Yes, the RNZAF should look to a replacement the ones it has were purchased either in 1965 (3) or 1969 (2). I kind of like the idea of getting KC-130Js to also get an AAR option.
B. MPA aircraft: These are needed to augment/replace the P-3K. The argument would then become what to get, and could be dependent on whether NZ is a potential market for the P-8. Whatever is accquired, it should be something with some ASV & ASW ability, greater then Maverick AGMs.
D. An additional Motorized (armoured) infantry battalion: I think this would be do able, a regimental sized force would be a stretch.
E. Some MCM capability: The IPVs once launched, depending on their fitout might be able to perform some MCM functions, or the RNZN might be able to purchase an ex-USN Osprey class MHC since they are scheduled to be decommissioned by the end of 2008 or so.

The following, while possibly a good idea are things I doubt will come to pass due to economic or political (or both) reasons.
C. A third frigate: For a third frigate, there are no really good options for NZ. Has basically 3 options a decision is made to add a third frigate. It can get a used frigate from another navy, this would be cheapest most likely but also likely have less service life as well as possible commonality issues with current vessels. It can buy a new frigate from a shipyard, this would be time consuming since a selection process would need to be done, as well as construction time. Also it would be expensive to buy just one and there would still be a parts commonality issue. The third option would be to order a new frigate from Tenix made to the same plans used for the Anzac class, an Anzac Block II if you will. This could be done (assuming Tenix has the appropriate design rights) but would be expensive since NZ would not be able to take advantage of the purchase option they originally had for a third vessel and the facilities that had been used to make modules are either producing modules for other vessels or are closed down. It would also take several years to launch the vessel since the facilities would need to wait for their product schedule to open to re-tool before construction would even begin.
I. & J. Are nearly the same, both could be used to reconstruct an Air combat capability which NZ doesn't seem interested in at present.
K. Land based SAMs would only be of use to defend NZ or relatively fixed overseas positions: While it would nice to have some, they would be less effective that an Air Combat arm, in that they can defend against an attack, not also carry out an attack or make a counter attack.

The following I don't think is feasible or makes sense for NZ to pursue.
F. Submarine capability: Yes, they are great for sea denial and attacks on shipping, but they are expensive and the RNZN has no experience operating subs. In the scheme of things, it would probably cost less to restart a Combat Squadron than to get a sub program going, and be at least as effective.
G. Tank regiment: Given the strategic environment of the ASEAN region as well as the assets of NZ & Australia, having a tank regiment makes no sense to me. Australia has only 1 tank regiment and once the Abrams are fully integrated, will total 41 tanks in the regiment with 18 being in schools or depots. That's 41 tanks out of a Defence Force of some 53,000 personnel. The NZDF has less than 9,000 regulars in total. 1/6th the total size which would mean either a drastic increase in the size of the army, or going by ratio roughly 6 tanks for NZ. Transportation off of NZ is another issue as well.
H. Rapid Reaction battalion: Given the available transport resources currently available to NZ, I don't see this happening without significant acquistions for transportation. While the HMNZS Canterbury will give the NZDF a lift ability of company size that is perhaps half what would be needed to transport a small battalion, never mind keeping the force supplied. Also with only 5 Hercules (old or new) that isn't able to quickly transport a battalion or keep it supplied. After all what good is a rapid reaction battalion, or a tank regiment, if you can't get it to where it needs to be, or if you can get it there, but aren't able to keep it there.

As for getting the RSAF to relocate one of their units from the US to NZ, it depends on what the Unit does in the US. If they predominantly are a training unit then it would only make sense if the same or better training could be done in NZ for an equal or better price. If it isn't a training unit, then it might make more sense but would still need to be less expensive before Singapore might decided to go along with it.

 

[Gibbo]

Pretty sure that the MB339's are stored at Ohakea (the A4's are at Blenheim), and are flown on a fairly regular basis to keep them in airworthy condition, the A4's are just subject to an occasional engine start. I have had the odd MB339 fly past me while flying around the central Nth Island / Sth Waikato area in the recent past.

Can't imagine an ARH would be a starter, they are normally an asset you have in addition to a strike platform not instead of.

Yep totally agree with the last point, and would love to see MB339's retruned to service, but I'm thinking of the current (& forseeable future!?!) political climate & what that's likely to support. They're an absolute no-no with Labour - nor am I convinced National will go for that option.

I guess by the same token ARH then also is a non-starter, but I kinda feel there could be an argument for them. Certainly with chopper acquisitions happeningat the moment we could in theory see that stratched to an light-armed recon platform (based on upcoming LUH but with second batch required) - not hard-hitting firepower but at least a step in the right direction.

Trying to be realistic - but then I would have never realistically expected Labout to stretch to a $771M budget for the NH-90.

 

[KH-12]

It is surprising that the NH90's got ordered, the post East Timor deployment review on the inadequecies of the UH-1H must have really struck home, maybe with the improvement in the exchange rate the government will be able to purchase additional LUH to make up the numbers, the number of 6 proposed seems abit on the light side.

Yes a reactivation of the MB339 to squadron service does seem unlikely, but if the gov is unable to sell them then it might be a face saving option rather than scrapping them.

 

[Norm]

In July I was in Bulls a small town just just outside of Ohekea and treated to a lovely sight as a MB 339 soared above the Town.Sadly word is almost a done deal, only remaining worry being when flown in the good old USA a trainee pilot may fly off course!! in an A4 or MB 339 .Personally love to see A4's stored as currently for a "rainy day" and the MB 339.s used for Forward Air Controller Training , light attack etc but not likely.