NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Markus40]

Can anyone give me a straight answer as to why we couldnt purchase the LUH helo and operate them under a civil contractor. IE The Police Department. Instead of the Defence Forces. The LUH purchase would appear in my opinion to be irrelevant to the overall Defence Forces procurement programmes due to the non military nature of its intended operations, other than training.

It can be used for the Military if needed immediatly, but in the normal day to day training and light ops, why it couldnt operate within the Police Departments jurisdiction.

 

[Sea Toby]

The defence forces are national in scope, local police forces are not national in any sense, and are very localised. While the 8 NH90s will be the offshore patrol boats of the helicopter force, the 6 LUHs will be the inshore patrol boats.

As I read between the lines of today's news sources, the 8 NH90s were ordered today for delivery starting in 2010, the government could receive LUHs during 2009 if they order them next year in 2007. It apears there is no rush to order the LUHs.

The New Zealand government purchased 8 NH90s for the overall price of NZ$ 771 million, 40 percent of the price is for spares and support. More than likely there is a ninth frame in the spares and support package. The cabinet did not choose to order 6 LUHs at this time, which will have the cost of 2 NH90s, or around NZ$ 100-120 million.

As has been noted before in this thread, the LUHs will be used operationally by the national defence forces for operations beyond training duties, in scenarios where a NH90 maybe overkill.

As for civilian training, while the skills to fly are learned, the police and air force have two different rules of engagement. The air force would prefer to train their pilots to the military rules of engagement. There is no need to confuse air force pilots with police rules of engagement. I would rather have the Australian air force train New Zealand military pilots than any police force.

 

[KH-12]

The defence forces are national in scope, local police forces are not national in any sense, and are very localised. While the 8 NH90s will the offshore patrol boats of the helicopter force, the 6 LUHs will be the inshore patrol boats.

As I read between the lines of today's news sources, the 8 NH90s were ordered today for delivery starting in 2010, the government could receive LUHs during 2009 if they order them next year in 2007. It apears there is no rush to order the LUHs.

This sounds like a good analogy , I think the LUH is being refered to as a training helicopter to underplay it abit, I think training will be a more minor part of its role. The lead time on the LUH purchase should be pretty short you could probably have the aircraft within a year of ordering, the NH90 production line however is pretty committed with everyone wanting their aircraft now. The Sqioux are very much near the end of their operational life, and I think we could see the LUH delivered as early as next year.

Looks like the EADS guy let slip that 9 NH90 have been purchased with the 9th airframe as an attrition / spare :

http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/...15149&ID=3854e040-5787-4e71-a3f6-cdeedb916a2b

 

[Mr Brown]

Hey Sea Toby, NZ's Police are a national serivce. But having the AF operate the LUH means they could be deployed overseas.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Now to the Strike Force. Sorry, but this doesnt hold water either. Not having a combat wing as i mentioned in a previous post is like "clipping the wing of a bird" throw it in the air and see if the Air force will fly again. Labour did exactly this, because they knew nothing about Defence and its security obligations with Australia. Its a shame, but if we are to see our Defence Forces resume a healthy balanced outcome and they see seriously that all the other services IE Army, Navy need to have the Air Cover if needed to call on. Thats why i am an advocate for a deal made with Australia with its F18s being based at Ohakea under NZ colours. This isnt going to cost the earth and if so can be incorporated over time to obsorb the infrastructure costs and training costs for the crew.

Marcus, the RAAF have 3 F-18 squadrons and a defence north posture, so while it would be nice, having F-18s based here is just not practical, esp if the F-111 is going to be retired soon.

To provide ‘air cover’ is much more than having a squadron of strike aircraft. If the NZDF is operating in a coalition operation then it will already be under a comprehensive air defence network. If it is operating in the South Pacific then it cannot ‘reach’ the area of operations in any meaningful way, without some very expensive assets.

Markus, while I would like to see air strike in RNZAF colours I can’t fit it to NZ’s strategic environment. Can you give us how you see this as a necessary element to the NZDF force structure based on the strategic environment?

I would like to see a squadron of Hawks (or like aircraft) that can be used to train the army and navy in areas such as air defence, CAS etc..

With the added benefit of training RNZAF pilots in basic strike ops, and even moving pilots to the RAAF for exchange programs. Also maintenance skills. It would allow for a swifter reintroduction of strike into the NZDF if the future situation required it also.

 

[Markus40]

Whiskyjack, i agree with you based upon my past posting that NZ should invest again in a Hawke Squadron where we can retain to some degree an air defence and CAS within our own environment. So thats the first thing.

The second thing is the Australian government will be upgrading to the J35 and will need a buyer to replace the F111 and the F18. We can seize this opportunity and take on board the least expensive F18 and use them in a squadron as another option than the Hawke. No one has given me any good reason why this cant be done. The F18 was a topic of discussion recently within the National Causus to have a deal done with Australia to have a NZ squadron based here. As far as this being part of our strategic environment i think it has every reason to be and there is no reason for it not to be, as we operated 2 squadrons of maritime fast jets since 1971. The Australians found our combat readiness for exercises necessary for training their personell at Nowra, and vice versa and then there is our fundamental element for air cover for the Navy and Army.

You wont find a country to my knowledge with such expanses of coastline and maritime responsibilities not operating air defence forces of some nature. We need to take that responsibility into our own hands and not bludge off the Australians at their expense which has been happening in the past. So in conclusion yes i want to see our own country reinvesting into either the Hawke or the F18 depending on the cost outcome.

Marcus, the RAAF have 3 F-18 squadrons and a defence north posture, so while it would be nice, having F-18s based here is just not practical, esp if the F-111 is going to be retired soon.

To provide ‘air cover’ is much more than having a squadron of strike aircraft. If the NZDF is operating in a coalition operation then it will already be under a comprehensive air defence network. If it is operating in the South Pacific then it cannot ‘reach’ the area of operations in any meaningful way, without some very expensive assets.

Markus, while I would like to see air strike in RNZAF colours I can’t fit it to NZ’s strategic environment. Can you give us how you see this as a necessary element to the NZDF force structure based on the strategic environment?

I would like to see a squadron of Hawks (or like aircraft) that can be used to train the army and navy in areas such as air defence, CAS etc..

With the added benefit of training RNZAF pilots in basic strike ops, and even moving pilots to the RAAF for exchange programs. Also maintenance skills. It would allow for a swifter reintroduction of strike into the NZDF if the future situation required it also.

 

[Sea Toby]

I don't think New Zealand will ever see fighters again, they are history. I can see with a change in government trainers/light fighters in an air combat fleet, such as a Hawk or Golden Eagle, useful for close air support and maritime strike from New Zealand for New Zealand. I doubt they would ever be used in a UN sponsored peacekeeping mission outside the South Pacific.

While these light fighters don't have the combat radius to reach any of these island states, they can be transported or refueled in flight to ferry to a neighboring island state for operations against another. This would imply an agreement with the island nation accepting their deployment.

Any reconstitution of the air combat fleet will be expensive. Any reconstitution would require an increase in the New Zealand defence budget for acquisition and operations.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Whiskyjack, i agree with you based upon my past posting that NZ should invest again in a Hawke Squadron where we can retain to some degree an air defence and CAS within our own environment. So thats the first thing.

Agreed

The second thing is the Australian government will be upgrading to the J35 and will need a buyer to replace the F111 and the F18. We can seize this opportunity and take on board the least expensive F18 and use them in a squadron as another option than the Hawke. No one has given me any good reason why this cant be done. The F18 was a topic of discussion recently within the National Causus to have a deal done with Australia to have a NZ squadron based here. As far as this being part of our strategic environment i think it has every reason to be and there is no reason for it not to be, as we operated 2 squadrons of maritime fast jets since 1971. The Australians found our combat readiness for exercises necessary for training their personell at Nowra, and vice versa and then there is our fundamental element for air cover for the Navy and Army.

Mainly because the F-18 will be around 25-30 years old by the time they become available to the NZDF, they will be expensive to operate as well. Just because we operated two squadrons from 1971 does and trained with the Australians does not make it fit into NZ’s strategic environment.
Once again they are not air cover, as they were never tasked with air cover because they were not and could not provide air cover/strike missions into the Pacific.

You wont find a country to my knowledge with such expanses of coastline and maritime responsibilities not operating air defence forces of some nature. We need to take that responsibility into our own hands and not bludge off the Australians at their expense which has been happening in the past. So in conclusion yes i want to see our own country reinvesting into either the Hawke or the F18 depending on the cost outcome.

Markus show me one of those countries that is 2000km from its nearest neighbour (which are all friendly and benign in risk) , and situated in one of the less threatening (if not the least threatening) regions in the world?

Bludge? Is that the case in the Solomon’s, Timor, Afghanistan?

 

[Whiskyjack]

I don't think New Zealand will ever see fighters again, they are history. I can see with a change in government trainers/light fighters in an air combat fleet, such as a Hawk or Golden Eagle, useful for close air support and maritime strike from New Zealand for New Zealand. I doubt they would ever be used in a UN sponsored peacekeeping mission outside the South Pacific.

I agree, apart from the comments below.

While these light fighters don't have the combat radius to reach any of these island states, they can be transported or refueled in flight to ferry to a neighboring island state for operations against another. This would imply an agreement with the island nation accepting their deployment.

Well it is possibe, I think this unlikely as the logistics and distance (even from other islands) is still great, and given the situations that are possible i just can't see it happening.

Any reconstitution of the air combat fleet will be expensive. Any reconstitution would require an increase in the New Zealand defence budget for acquisition and operations.

Agree

I guess I see technology as moving on with other more cost effective options, that will suit the environment much better.

For instance a Mariner UAV can carry a 2,000lb external load, when you consider the range, loiter capability combined with the NSM missile or the SDM, and compare it with the context of operations, Hawk or Golden Eagle in the South Pacific the options become more interesting.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Stuart, this posting does have substance, and yes, NZ should reinstate its strike wing to have the chance of extending its soverignty over the Pacific. The NZDF are going to do this with the new OPVs and MRV with the Navy.

You just contradicted yourself there. You failed to show why a strike wing is nessary to do this, while saying a much cheaper option can do the job.
And we dont have soverignty over the Pacific, btw, all the other states might just object to that claim.

The capability and opportunity for NZ to work more closely with its neighbours like Fiji would be an excellent extension of our ability to operate with them. We should take the opportunity to exercise with many of the Pacific Islands states.

You dont need an air strike force to do this, at all, but adequete naval transport would do the trick.

The Air Combat force wouldnt be purchased on the basis of this alone but would be a part of it.

Then would you like post a reason for it?

I have discussed and debated this issue for a long time and i have the backing of many of my own collegues in the Defence forces and my contact with John Carter. So there is no doubt in my mind over this.

Appeal to authority, just because someone agrees with you does not justify it.
I dont dissagree with reconsituting an aircombat arm for the airforce, but to be blunt, unless you can justify it to the public it is not going to happen, and I have yet to see any supporter of that capability do a proper job of it, and certainly not in the National party. And the reason they cannot justify it is because they have yet to define a mission for the defence force, its pointless to talk equipment when you dont know what the job is. Labour has worked this out and used it to their advantage.

Just a little off the subject, I can tell you the greatest threat to NZs security right now immediatly at home is the fact that many NZers are now going to Australia to live with the skills they have picked up in NZ. We cant replace them as fast as they are leaving and i think this alone is going to cause a huge problem for many of our prospecting new defence force personel in the future.

Couldnt agree more. Not to mention the usual story of people leaving for better pay/conditions on civvie street.

 

[Markus40]

Seatoby, i dont quite understand your statement that you dont think you will see fighters again "they are history", when you then say after that you can see trainers or light fighters with a change of government. Can you elaberate exactly what you are trying to say. Cheers.

I don't think New Zealand will ever see fighters again, they are history. I can see with a change in government trainers/light fighters in an air combat fleet, such as a Hawk or Golden Eagle, useful for close air support and maritime strike from New Zealand for New Zealand. I doubt they would ever be used in a UN sponsored peacekeeping mission outside the South Pacific.

While these light fighters don't have the combat radius to reach any of these island states, they can be transported or refueled in flight to ferry to a neighboring island state for operations against another. This would imply an agreement with the island nation accepting their deployment.

Any reconstitution of the air combat fleet will be expensive. Any reconstitution would require an increase in the New Zealand defence budget for acquisition and operations.

 

[Markus40]

Yes the F18s will be 25-30 years older but hey the A4s were older than that before they were disbanded, and secondly the A4 will not have the range that F18 will have. So its my opinion that the F18 with external fuel tanks will be able to reach the South Pacific having a ferry range of around 3000 KM.

Fitting into NZs strategic environment may appear to be over kill, but its still a necessary element to our defence forces. I have explained some in my previous posting and i dont want to keep repeating myself.

I disagree with your broader perspective of "air cover" of the A4 because in some respects if they had been called up to do this they would have taken this role up fairly well. We saw alot of our fighter pilots up against good aircraft and more modern aircraft like the SAF and literally had the other guys licked. The A4 could carry Aim9s and Mavs for ground operations along with external fuel tanks for extended operations. Sure i agree that NZ wouldnt need fast jets for a protracted war in the South Pacific, but as an integral overall aspect to our armed forces they would be the peak or "sword edge" to our fighting forces. They also serve as a better rapid response, if called upon to any crisis that "might" happen to our immediate area of responsibility.

As to your request for a list of benign countries the one that immediatly comes to mind without have unfriendlies is Canada. Another is Iceland and Norway. Argentina, Brazil, South Africa. Just to name a few. These countries have no direct threat, yet they have taken Defence seriously and have their air combat forces in place, like any responsible country would.

I am sorry whiskyjack, but there is no room for a defence force like NZ to not have and continue its proud history and past and continue like the way it is. Any thing else is irresponsible.

Agreed



Mainly because the F-18 will be around 25-30 years old by the time they become available to the NZDF, they will be expensive to operate as well. Just because we operated two squadrons from 1971 does and trained with the Australians does not make it fit into NZ’s strategic environment.
Once again they are not air cover, as they were never tasked with air cover because they were not and could not provide air cover/strike missions into the Pacific.





Markus show me one of those countries that is 2000km from its nearest neighbour (which are all friendly and benign in risk) , and situated in one of the less threatening (if not the least threatening) regions in the world?

Bludge? Is that the case in the Solomon’s, Timor, Afghanistan?

 

[Markus40]

Stuart, i think you are jumping to conclusions and contradicting yourself for that matter. First, i never said to my knowledge that "a cheaper option can do the job". I want to tell you something. Air power is the pinnacle of any operation. I think its pretty obvious why a strike wing is important in a non benign area. Just take a look at the IAF. Even though we dont have the same situation in this part of the world it remains to be said, and it seems now that most people agree that some form of air defence is important for a more potent defence force, and NZ should have it.

I can tell you that once you have completed your army training and you are out in the field , an area our government desperatly needs its soldiers and suddenly you come under attack from an artillery postion. I can almost hear you screaming out for the RNZAF to get a pair of F18s or Hawkes and get their butts over with a precision weapon and take them out. Unless you are promoted to Universal soldier. :laugh

However, one thing i do agree is that you dont need fighters for the South Pacific---Just yet.

As to the political nature of defining our defence force, it is common knowledge to all those out there and people i associate with in the military that Labour have "brainwashed " alot of people into believing this isolationist ideology that NZ doesnt need good defence forces. We are peace keepers and not war makers. That its a waste of money . We dont need to train our servicemen with the Americans. That we dont need to invest into our security obligations by making our NZDFs stronger and more capable. Giving the NZ public false hopes about our defence capabilities.

As i mentioned before the air strike wing is the pinnacle of any defence force and is the corner stone to any country serious about pulling its weight and is vital to any outcome of any contingencies in the future.

You just contradicted yourself there. You failed to show why a strike wing is nessary to do this, while saying a much cheaper option can do the job.
And we dont have soverignty over the Pacific, btw, all the other states might just object to that claim.



You dont need an air strike force to do this, at all, but adequete naval transport would do the trick.



Then would you like post a reason for it?



Appeal to authority, just because someone agrees with you does not justify it.
I dont dissagree with reconsituting an aircombat arm for the airforce, but to be blunt, unless you can justify it to the public it is not going to happen, and I have yet to see any supporter of that capability do a proper job of it, and certainly not in the National party. And the reason they cannot justify it is because they have yet to define a mission for the defence force, its pointless to talk equipment when you dont know what the job is. Labour has worked this out and used it to their advantage.




Couldnt agree more. Not to mention the usual story of people leaving for better pay/conditions on civvie street.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Yes the F18s will be 25-30 years older but hey the A4s were older than that before they were disbanded, and secondly the A4 will not have the range that F18 will have. So its my opinion that the F18 with external fuel tanks will be able to reach the South Pacific having a ferry range of around 3000 KM.

Markus ferry range is not strike radius, here you are looking at no more than 1000km. Still 1000km short. The A4s were technically not useful in that they were to slow to operate with allied strike packages. The F-18 at 30 years old would be a disaster for the RNZAF as it would tie up logistics resources’ like you would not believe.

Fitting into NZs strategic environment may appear to be over kill, but its still a necessary element to our defence forces. I have explained some in my previous posting and i dont want to keep repeating myself.

You will have to keep repeating yourself until you justify you position e.g. I say the moon is made of cheese!

I disagree with your broader perspective of "air cover" of the A4 because in some respects if they had been called up to do this they would have taken this role up fairly well. We saw alot of our fighter pilots up against good aircraft and more modern aircraft like the SAF and literally had the other guys licked. The A4 could carry Aim9s and Mavs for ground operations along with external fuel tanks for extended operations. Sure i agree that NZ wouldnt need fast jets for a protracted war in the South Pacific, but as an integral overall aspect to our armed forces they would be the peak or "sword edge" to our fighting forces. They also serve as a better rapid response, if called upon to any crisis that "might" happen to our immediate area of responsibility

Markus that is just not true, they may well have given a good account of themselves in ACM, but that is not air cover!!!! They had an operating radius of around 600kms with external drop tanks and MAVs OR AIMs!

As to your request for a list of benign countries the one that immediatly comes to mind without have unfriendlies is Canada. Another is Iceland and Norway. Argentina, Brazil, South Africa. Just to name a few. These countries have no direct threat, yet they have taken Defence seriously and have their air combat forces in place, like any responsible country would.

Markus what do you not understand about this issue!! Iceland has a population of 300,000! Norway has been invaded and is part of Europe and shares a land border. As for Brazil, Argentina and South Africa if you are seriously sating they are in a benign strategic environment then I suggest you check again! How do any of these countries compare to NZ’s strategic environment?

I am sorry whiskyjack, but there is no room for a defence force like NZ to not have and continue its proud history and past and continue like the way it is. Any thing else is irresponsible.

I don’t disagree I just use facts! Theory and opinion need to stand up, not just be right because a person tells you they are? facts, appropriate examples.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I can tell you that once you have completed your army training and you are out in the field , an area our government desperatly needs its soldiers and suddenly you come under attack from an artillery postion. I can almost hear you screaming out for the RNZAF to get a pair of F18s or Hawkes and get their butts over with a precision weapon and take them out. Unless you are promoted to Universal soldier. :laugh

There are so many things wrong with that statement it is hard to know where to begin. Unless you know where the artillery is coming from then air strike is useless, in fact compared to counter battery fire with radars etc.. Air Strike comes in second.

As i mentioned before the air strike wing is the pinnacle of any defence force and is the corner stone to any country serious about pulling its weight and is vital to any outcome of any contingencies in the future.

Actually the ability to contribute appropriate forces is what makes a defence force pull its weight, and as I have said numerous times even the aussies are nowsaying they prefer infantry to strike! BECAUSE IT MAKES MORE SENSE IN THE JOINT AUSSIE/KIWI ENVIRONMENT!!!

 

[Markus40]

Whiskyjack, im sure you know what im saying. I dont think it takes a rocket scientist to figure this out.!!!!!!! The IAF know exactly that to take out artillery for example the rockets they fire into Israel they need air strikes to do it. Have you heard about thermal imaging and infrared? I really hope you have because im beginning to wonder. Sure you need to have technology to know where the artillery is coming from, thats why you have forward targeting officers, and satcom, SAS, and mobile artillery of your own. However using battlefield intelligence air strikes are an integral part of that mission and save lives on the battle front.

Sure the Aussies can say what they like.!! They have all the gears. We will obviously need to rely on it at some point. However it doesnt detract from my main point and if you read me properly i am saying that the Air strike element to any defence force is the major essence to HAVING a defence force. How you apply it in any given situation would need to be assesed based on its strategic requirements. If this isnt clear Whiskyjack then im worried about you, to be frank.

There are so many things wrong with that statement it is hard to know where to begin. Unless you know where the artillery is coming from then air strike is useless, in fact compared to counter battery fire with radars etc.. Air Strike comes in second.



Actually the ability to contribute appropriate forces is what makes a defence force pull its weight, and as I have said numerous times even the aussies are nowsaying they prefer infantry to strike! BECAUSE IT MAKES MORE SENSE IN THE JOINT AUSSIE/KIWI ENVIRONMENT!!!

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Stuart, i think you are jumping to conclusions and contradicting yourself for that matter. First, i never said to my knowledge that "a cheaper option can do the job".

"NZ should reinstate its strike wing to have the chance of extending its soverignty over the Pacific. The NZDF are going to do this with the new OPVs and MRV with the Navy."

Yes, you did, as quoted above. unless you want to claim that the OPV's and the MRV are more expensive than reconsituting the air combat wing?

I want to tell you something. Air power is the pinnacle of any operation.

Yeah, and? Carriers are the pinnicle of any naval force, but you dont see the RNZN asking for a Nimitz class carrier do you?

I think its pretty obvious why a strike wing is important in a non benign area. Just take a look at the IAF.

False analogy. The strategic situation of Isreal is not even remotely comparable to that of NZ.

Even though we dont have the same situation in this part of the world it remains to be said, and it seems now that most people agree that some form of air defence is important for a more potent defence force, and NZ should have it.

And another appeal to authority. Just because these 'most people' say this, the onus is still on you to provide evidence to sustain your argument, now why dont you provide a credible reason why we need an air strike wing?

I can tell you that once you have completed your army training and you are out in the field , an area our government desperatly needs its soldiers and suddenly you come under attack from an artillery postion. I can almost hear you screaming out for the RNZAF to get a pair of F18s or Hawkes and get their butts over with a precision weapon and take them out. Unless you are promoted to Universal soldier. :laugh

grow up.

However, one thing i do agree is that you dont need fighters for the South Pacific---Just yet.

So why exactly are you saying that we need them?

As to the political nature of defining our defence force, it is common knowledge to all those out there and people i associate with in the military that Labour have "brainwashed " alot of people into believing this isolationist ideology that NZ doesnt need good defence forces. We are peace keepers and not war makers. That its a waste of money . We dont need to train our servicemen with the Americans. That we dont need to invest into our security obligations by making our NZDFs stronger and more capable. Giving the NZ public false hopes about our defence capabilities.

Yet another appeal to some vague authority. Labour gets to shape defence policy because they were elected. Moreover people agree with their defence policy because they can make a rational case for what they are doing, something that you, like the National party, have yet to accomplish. Waving your hands around saying we need a capability because everyone else has it, is not sound policy.

As i mentioned before the air strike wing is the pinnacle of any defence force and is the corner stone to any country serious about pulling its weight and is vital to any outcome of any contingencies in the future.

And yet, you have still to prove it has any value to this country or back up anything you say with evidence.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

There are so many things wrong with that statement it is hard to know where to begin. Unless you know where the artillery is coming from then air strike is useless, in fact compared to counter battery fire with radars etc.. Air Strike comes in second.

Indeed, I noticed that. You know, I smell troll.

 

[Sea Toby]

Have you checked the price for fighters recently. Havy you notice that the trainers/light fighters are about half the price of a fighter? That's why I don't think New Zealand will ever have full fledged fighters. Their price! For example, Hawk aircraft sell around $15 million US dollars, that's $30 million New Zealand dollars, plus anothrer 40 percent like the NH90 deal for spare parts and support, the price is up to $42 million per aircraft for light fighters/trainers. A full fledge fighter would run over $90 million each. Also notice that the Hawk and Golden Eagle light fighters/trainers are much cheaper to operate too. You'll never get two squadrons worth, considering the upcoming need to replace the Hercules and Orions.

It was the same with the A-4 Skyhawks. By the time New Zealand received them they were trainers/light fighters for the US Marine Corps. New Zealand couldn't afford F-16s back in 1980. At about the same time Australia was buying F/A-18s. New Zealand couldn't afford them either. Until the sweetheart, cream puffs from Pakistan became available, New Zealand couldn't afford F-16s. Well, that sweetheart deal is gone, the cream puffs are gone, those aircraft have been swallowed in whole by the USAF.

I have noticed that this government chose to separate the NH90 and EC-135 buys. Towards the end of the next decade New Zealand is facing a huge upcoming order to buy 5 Hercules and 6 Orion replacements, more than likely half that number for new P-8s. So New Zealand will have to buy 5 Hercules and 3 P-8s. Have you checked their prices lately? Easily $2 billion in US dollars, $4 billion in New Zealand dollars. It will more than likely take the entire decade to pay for them at the current rate of procurement.

While the current government saw the opportunity to eliminate the air combat force, it won't be able to eliminate the maritime patrol assets, as they are used every day, and the Hercules transport force. They will have to pay the piper! If New Zealand wishes to reconstitute the air combat force, it appears all they may be able to afford are the cheaper, second rate, light fighters/trainers aircraft. While they don't have the range of a full fledge fighter, they will provide the maritime strike and close air support, comparable to the air threat to New Zealand.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Whiskyjack, im sure you know what im saying. I dont think it takes a rocket scientist to figure this out.!!!!!!! The IAF know exactly that to take out artillery for example the rockets they fire into Israel they need air strikes to do it. Have you heard about thermal imaging and infrared? I really hope you have because im beginning to wonder. Sure you need to have technology to know where the artillery is coming from, thats why you have forward targeting officers, and satcom, SAS, and mobile artillery of your own. However using battlefield intelligence air strikes are an integral part of that mission and save lives on the battle front.

Sure the Aussies can say what they like.!! They have all the gears. We will obviously need to rely on it at some point. However it doesnt detract from my main point and if you read me properly i am saying that the Air strike element to any defence force is the major essence to HAVING a defence force. How you apply it in any given situation would need to be assesed based on its strategic requirements. If this isnt clear Whiskyjack then im worried about you, to be frank.

Markus what you are saying is that NZ needs to have to capability to have round the clock ISTAR capability to find these targets followed by a capability to have strike on a CAP 24/7 to provide the sort of strike you are talking about. So you can do the math on what resourses are needed to do that. Also give me the success rate for such missions?

For the second part I am not sure how to reply, but here goes. Strategic situation dictates the composition of any armed force, or at least it should (and does for most reasonable countries). To say that Strike makes an armed force is like saying jaffas make the night at the movies, instead of ice cream or pop corn. Just not true.

Now you will have noticed that I am not against air strike if the budget is available and indeed I have tried to show what budget would be needed. I have also tried to implement a long range presision strike for the NZDF that can be hung off UAVs and MPAs that allow for a dual use technology to best complement NZ's strategic environment.

Markus I respect your veiw, I really do, but you simply make statesments without either backing it up with the numbers (both platform or $$), and do not seem to understand the technology its applications or its limitations.

In other words give me a platform, give me the numbers needed to operate it effectively, how will it be operated, how much will it cost, how will it be used if it does not suit the ops in the Pacific, how will the rest of the NZDF be configured.

Please take note that several others have asked the same thing of you!

Give details!