Royal New Zealand Air Force

[recce.k1]

Flight International has an interesting report on the RNZAF's fleet modernisation progress.

RNZAF modernisation reaches first milestone with 757 re-delivery
By Brendan Sobie
DATE:08/08/08
SOURCE:Flight International
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...isation-reaches-first-milestone-with-757.html

The Royal New Zealand Air Force received on 4 August the first of two newly modified Boeing 757-200 multi-mission aircraft, marking a new chapter in its long-standing six-tier modernisation programme.

New Zealand officials say the modernisation programme will reach other key milestones late this year and early next year when the air force receives the first of five upgraded Lockheed Martin C-130H transports and the first of eight new NH Industries NH90 medium utility helicopters, respectively.

The RNZAF embarked on an extensive modernisation programme early this decade when it identified plans to upgrade three existing platforms and acquire three new platforms while dropping its combat capability. Its fleet of 757s, C-130Hs and Lockheed Martin P-3K maritime patrol aircraft are now in the process of being upgraded while eight NH90s and five new AgustaWestland A109 training and light utility helicopters are being acquired.

The launch of the sixth and final element of the programme, advanced fixed-wing trainers, has been delayed several times and is finally expected to move forward with a tender by the end of September.

The A109s are scheduled to be delivered from 2010 while the first NH90 is to be handed over to the RNZAF in the first quarter of 2009, according to assistant secretary of defence Kevin McHamon. But McHamon says "it will likely be a few years" before any NH90 is flying in New Zealand because the first units will initially stay in Europe, where they will be used for flight testing and training.

McHamon expects the first of six upgraded P-3Ks to be redelivered by the end of next year. The first P-3K, which is being outfitted with new mission, communications and navigation systems at L-3 Communications Integrated Systems in Texas, was originally to be redelivered early this year.

McHamon says the first C-130H, which was also supposed to be redelivered early this year, is now scheduled to be handed over in the fourth quarter. He says two of the air force's five C-130s are now at L-3 Communications Spar Aerospace's facility in Canada, where they are undergoing life-extension modifications and receiving electronic warfare self-protection suites.

The RNZAF expects its second C-130H to be redelivered by Spar in the first quarter of next year. McHamon says the air force plans to deliver the third aircraft to New Zealand's Safe Air, which will perform the remaining three C-130 and five P-3 upgrades in-country, in the fourth quarter of this year.

Meanwhile, ST Aero is halfway through converting the RNZAF's second 757 and plans to redeliver the aircraft late this year. This programme, which involves installing a cargo door, a crew access ladder, airstairs unit and military avionics, is also running more than one year behind its original schedule. RNZAF deputy chief Air Commodore Dick Newlands says the air force "has been able to get around the shortfall" caused by the delays to the 757 and C-130 upgrade programmes by using more commercial charters.

The RNZAF will now be able to operate the aircraft in an all-passenger configuration with 142 economy and 18 business-class seats or in an all-cargo configuration with 11 pallet positions. It can now also be operated in a variety of mixed configurations, including 138 seats plus two pallets, and be used for aeromedical evacuations.

Newlands says the modified 757 will give the air force the ability to fly larger payloads into remote places such as the Solomon Islands. He says the aircraft will also be able to take on additional missions. This is the general theme of the service's modernisation programme as the P-3 and C-130 will be able to take on additional missions following redelivery. "It gives us much more of a multi-role capability," Newlands says. "It's certainly moving the air force forward."

Good to see the first 757 upgrade completed. Interesting comments from the Acting Deputy Secretary of Defence (Acquisition) that "it will likely be a few years" before any NH90 is flying in New Zealand due to the training programme being conducted in Europe. By few I suppose that equates to about five, thus 2013-2014 before an NH-90 is seen in NZ? Seems an awefully long time to get 3 Squadron (NH90) to operational status, surely this can't be right? Mind you Defence has said previosuly that the UH-1's will be flying for a few more years yet as the NH90's enter service although interesting that the recent UH-1 aircrew deployment to Timor has been announced as being the last UH-1 deployment over there. See http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/20080710-lhdhttl.htm "This deployment was due to come to an end in October 2008 to allow the beginning of the transition to the new NH90 helicopters that will come into service between 2010 and 2011". So I suppose the Secretary really meant a couple of years not a few and thus expect to see 3 Sqn operational in NZ within 2-3 years which seems more realistic i.e. after a good 18-24 months of training etc.

Another report from FI a few days ago on the 757 modernisation (and a link on the page has another link to an interior photo, very plush)!

PICTURES: ST Aero completes 757 conversion for Royal New Zealand Air Force By Brendan Sobie
DATE:05/08/08
SOURCE:Flight International
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...nversion-for-royal-new-zealand-air-force.html

Singapore Technologies Aerospace (ST Aero) re-delivered yesterday the first of two Boeing 757-200 multi-mission convertible aircraft to the Royal New Zealand Air Force.

RNZAF in 2005 selected ST Aero’s US facility, ST Mobile Aerospace Engineering (MAE), to convert two ex-Transavia 757s RNZAF acquired in 2003.

The first aircraft was delivered to MAE in April 2007 and has since undergone a complex customised conversion.

RNZAF initially used the aircraft to transport troops and VIPs but wanted the aircraft to take on a multi-mission role.

To meet the RNZAF requirement, MAE has reconfigured the cabin and installed a cargo door, crew access ladder as well as a military avionics suite.

MAE president Joseph Ng says the RNZAF will be able to operate the aircraft in an all-passenger configuration with 142 economy and 18 business class seats or in an all-cargo configuration with 11 pallet positions. The interior picture here shows the business class seats.

Ng says the 757 can also now be operated in a variety of mixed configurations, including a 138 seat and 2 pallet combination. The aircraft is also now equipped to handle aeromedical evacuations.

ST Aero president Tay Kok Khiang says MAE is now halfway done with converting RNZAF’s second 757. This aircraft is scheduled to be-redelivered in the fourth quarter of this year.

ST Aero was originally contracted to re-deliver the first 757 to RNZAF in the second quarter of 2007. Tay says the re-delivery was first pushed back to January 2008 due to contract changes and a redefinition of the programme which resulted in a postponement in the induction of the first aircraft.

He says a second delay in the re-delivery from January 2008 to August 2008 was “mutually agreed” to by ST Aero and RNZAF after the aircraft arrived at MAE. Tay explains this delay was needed to address “numerous challenges” that arose from this “complex” conversion.

Yesterday’s redelivery marks the start of a new chapter in ST Aero’s 757 cargo conversion programme. ST Aero along with partner Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) initially converted 34 757s for DHL early this decade as part of a Boeing-led cargo conversion programme.

ST Aero re-launched the programme as a prime contractor in 2005 after securing a two-aircraft order from RNZAF. Early last year it also secured an order for 87 757-200 passenger-to-freighter conversions from FedEx. Tay says the first two of these aircraft were recently re-delivered to FedEx.

ST Aero in April secured from the US FAA a supplemental type certificate for the 757-200SF. Boeing held the STC for the original DHL programme.

Tay says Boeing’s support of ST Aero’s STC application helped ST Aero receive its own STC only five days after the last test flight involving the FedEx 757-200SF prototype.

He says for the RNZAF aircraft a STC was not required and would have been costly to pursue for only two aircraft, but all the work was done to FAA STC standards.

And finally a report on the advanced trainer project. Hmm this one could be interesting, lets see what 2009 brings us once the proposals are evaluated...

New Zealand to start advanced trainer competition by October
By Brendan Sobie
DATE:09/08/08
SOURCE:Flight International
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...to-start-advanced-trainer-competition-by.html

New Zealand is preparing to release a long-planned request for proposals covering new fixed-wing air force training aircraft and simulators.

Assistant secretary of defence Kevin McHamon says the New Zealand government has approved a budget for the Beechcraft King Air B200 replacement programme and an RFP should be released by the end of September. He says New Zealand will be asking for a mix of lease and buy proposals for both new and used aircraft. Simulators will also be included in the procurement.

The Royal New Zealand Air Force now leases five B200s, but McHamon says it will not specify in the RFP exactly how many aircraft it requires. He says this will depend on the platform selected and how many simulators are acquired.

RNZAF may also include maintenance in the procurement or it could opt to maintain the new trainer fleet in-house. "It's a question of economics," McHamon says.

He says the air force has been given a total budget for its advanced pilot training programme but it has the flexibility to determine the best combination of solutions. He declines to say how much funding has been set aside and says the RNZAF will only be able to gauge if the budget is sufficient after it receives the full package of bids.

The B200s are now maintained externally as part of a package that also includes a simulator and the actual training of pilots. The RNZAF plans to take over operations of the programme, which gives it the option of bringing maintenance in-house, although it could opt to lease the new aircraft instead of buying them outright.

 

[Lucasnz]

TV 3 was reporting tonight that the US State Department and DOD will rush through any approval for the sale of the MB 339 and A4's, once contract documents have been issued one of the two tenders. Phil Goff was stating that it was hope to have the sale completed within two months (Oh that would be about election time).

No link on TV 3 website at this time.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

TV 3 was reporting tonight that the US State Department and DOD will rush through any approval for the sale of the MB 339 and A4's, once contract documents have been issued one of the two tenders. Phil Goff was stating that it was hope to have the sale completed within two months (Oh that would be about election time).

No link on TV 3 website at this time.

Quoth the Hilux ad: Bugger.
There goes one idea for a simulated balanced force..for training purposes.

 

[Norm]

Skyhawk sale

Quoth the Hilux ad: Bugger.
There goes one idea for a simulated balanced force..for training purposes.

Here is the copy on the TV3 web site , there is also a Video clip on the story on the TV3 web site:
Just wonder why its happening so close to the Election , the Government may link it with say a Harpoon Missile Order, Jets are gone Voters , but we have moved on that iniative.If the Nats got in I was rather hoping the Aermacchis would be reactivated and should'nt we have a War reserve and keep the Skyhawks in (better)Storage.?Such is life.
National
Skyhawks sale gets a step closer
Wed, 13 Aug 2008 5:16p.m.

The Air Force's white elephants, the A4 Skyhawks, are one step closer to finally being sold, seven years after they were grounded.

Defence Minister Phil Goff has confirmed to 3 News the US government has given him an assurance to fast track a possible sale, which could come in the next two months.

Since being grounded in 2001 the A4 Skyhawks have proved to be more a nightmare for the Air Force than the pride they once were, costing $300,000 a month to maintain.

The Government has tried to sell them for nine years, only to be blocked every time by the US State Department. But Defence Minister Phil Goff says they are now wanting to help.

“I have now had an assurance from the Department of Defence and the Department of State that once the tender has been issued, to one of the two bidders for our planes, they will fast track the process,” says Goff.

Goff has confirmed to 3 News the sale price is US$110 million dollars for the 17 Skyhawk jets and a fleet of training Aermacchis.

A contract has yet to be awarded by the US, but Goff is confident that should be in the next two months, and a cheque written finally by the end of the year.

“I'll only breathe a sigh of relief when I receive the cheque but so far the assurance given to me by the American government is very welcome,” says Goff.

The assurance came from a high level US official who visited Wellington last week, and it comes less than a month after the visit of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The Skyhawks have been sitting outside at the Woodbourne Airbase for almost a year, covered by a hundred thousand dollar latex coating that ACT MP Heather Roy says is failing.

“Water is seeping in between the layers of the latex. It's pooling the so called maintenance is somebody going around after rain with a pin or sharp object piercing the latex covering so that the water drains out and that’s it,” Roy says.

Safe Air, the company that maintains the Skyhawks, would not comment today. The Air Force though says the weather damage was expected but that the important parts of the aircraft are well kept. The Government says their current condition should not hinder any possible future sale.

3 News

 

[recce.k1]

TVNZ news report/video http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/2001547

TV3 news report/video http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/National/tabid/309/articleID/66873/cat/525/Default.aspx#video

Google "Wings Over Cambridge - Home" (Sorry, not allowed to link to other forums!) and look for the post war RNZAF threads. People there are a bit sceptical that the "sale" is as rosey as our DefMin would like everyone to believe. But who knows, time will tell I suppose!

 

[mattyem]

Labour finds itself ion a good postition for this deal so close to an election!

I still cant get over the costs of maintaining these aircraft whilst they are un-operational. Just to think we could have been flying these aircraft all these years!

It surprised me how little forward looking the government od the day did in relation to the on sale of these aircraft. One would think more communication would have taken place between our government the MoD and the us defence and state departments.

If only National had of stayed in power our skies would be graced with the sight and sounds of the F-16!!!

RIP ROYAL NEW ZEALAND AIR FORCE STRIKE WING
so much military history wasted

 

[greenie]

Good evening people
On a completely different tack in relation to transport aircraft I was wondering if there could be a need for a small super STOL aircraft of around 9 seats.
I was thinking of a military version(they dont make one yet but someone has to be first) of the kiwi built PAL 750XL ,way back in the dark ages when Mr Thorp designed the Fletcher it was a COIN come close support aircraft so perhapes with some hard points fitted it could have another interesting role.
With operating costs of a fraction of the NH90 and C130 I think it could perhapes carry out many varied tasks and worth a look, and with the bonus of buy kiwi made, (pollys love that stuff).
Any ideas?

 

[recce.k1]

It is worthy of consideration - the PAC 750 could have a role similar to the GAF Nomad (STOL troop transport for the ADF and PNGDF back in the 70's/80's etc) for those ops in the pacific? Would be a cheap solution.

A COIN variant would be interesting, something similar to the Douglas A-5 Skyraider which was successful in Vietnam (or souped up A-37)? Could have been useful for ops in Timor back in 1999 onwards perhaps? Would it not be similar to an A-10, but cheaper, something that operates in a low threat environment (or in an environment with other assets to neutralise higher level threats)? Could also use it for Forward Air Control etc.

Can't see what would be wrong with the idea, but there must be a reason why NZ hasn't gone there?

 

[KH-12]

How about a mini version of the AC-130 , rip the doors off the side and whack in an M61 and some sensors

Maybe the best use would be as a platform for military parachuting such as training SAS members (much cheaper to operate than a C130 plus it is an established role for the aircraft) not sure if you could achieve the ceiling for HALO however

 

[greenie]

I feel that it is worth a look.Last time Ive herd any price mentioned it was around the $3 mil per aircraft , bargin I recon ,esp over a 15-20 year life.
Around 10 would be required I feel , just think of all the uses , parachuting, training,foward air control, medivac, SAR, army co-ops, internal SATs (like the beech do now), and Im sure theres more.
I seam to rember that the CT-4 when first built came with optional hard points, the idea of a mini A10 is very posible ,if nothing else for extra fuel .
There is so much experience of operating these types in NZ it should be an easy transition .
Perhapes no one has thought of it yet.

 

[moahunter]

RIP ROYAL NEW ZEALAND AIR FORCE STRIKE WING
so much military history wasted

Not really - it didn't make sense for New Zealand, the country is simply too small and poor to maintain and operate an effective strike wing. In any serious war, New Zealand can rely on such support from Australia or other nations. When resources are limited (which for New Zealand, they always will be), it is much better to be really good at a few things where a useful role can be played (like light infantry or naval patrol), rather than hopeless at a lot of things. A proud history is all very well and good, but the future won't be proud if one doesn't focus on a useful role for today and the future, not yesterday.

 

[moahunter]

duplicate

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Not really - it didn't make sense for New Zealand, the country is simply too small and poor to maintain and operate an effective strike wing.

Codswallop. NZ successfully maintained a strike element to its airforce for decades after WW2 and its size and nature makes sense if you first learn what its intended roles were and the underlying assumptions behind it during 1938 onwards. That we no longer do so has more to do with what is politically affordable not financially affordable, as evidenced by its maintenance at the height of the 80's economic crisis.

In any serious war, New Zealand can rely on such support from Australia or other nations.

If we are in a serious war no one will have the spare capacity to help us because their own scarce resources will be dedicated to helping themselves, which is why we had an airstrike wing in the first place.

When resources are limited (which for New Zealand, they always will be), it is much better to be really good at a few things where a useful role can be played (like light infantry or naval patrol), rather than hopeless at a lot of things.

Unfortunately for you and NZ, to be good at a few things, those few things must train and operate within the context of a well trained balanced force so that they can maintain the necessary skill sets to operate in war alongside other nations; we are now losing those skills.

Moreover if we are involved in a 'serious war' we must be able to secure our infrastructure, ports and coasts against low level threats so our principle contribution can be embarked and sustained without molestation and enable the continued free flow of trade that is the life blood of our country. As evidenced by past wars, the kind of threats that the forces would have to deal with, without out side help, were of a low level and could be managed by properly constituted forces, including an air-strike wing....until we lost properly balanced and properly funded armed forces.

A proud history is all very well and good, but the future won't be proud if one doesn't focus on a useful role for today and the future, not yesterday.

That would make sense if you could make an accurate prediction of the future.
I know its close to the election, but could you at least try and think for yourself rather than mindlessly parroting Labour party policy?

 

[moahunter]

Codswallop. NZ successfully maintained a strike element to its airforce for decades after WW2 and its size and nature makes sense if you first learn what its intended roles were and the underlying assumptions behind it during 1938 onwards. That we no longer do so has more to do with what is politically affordable not financially affordable, as evidenced by its maintenance at the height of the 80's economic crisis.

After WWII how much did a plane cost? They were dime a dozen, surplus from the war. NZ simply can't compete today though. Even when it spends the vast resources to train pilots to a high enough level to enable them to fly strike aircraft (which it can only afford low quality versions of anyway), those pilots are stolen by airforces which provide better opportunities / higher salaries.

It's just foolish to try to compete at something NZ is incapable of competing in today. While in a pipe dream NZ would have the resources to be great at everything, the reality is it is a small poor country, that can at best put together a world class infantry combat ready reaction force (with air and sea logistical support). Those forces can train, and become an integral part of, and a useful part of, the forces of the countries NZ works with in any given operation. The idea that NZ will ever go it alone anywhere, and needs to build up a mini-superpower capability with every type of combat force possible, is just nonesense. Like all small countries, the key to being useful is to be brilliant at a few things, not medicore at a lot. That means making some hard choices from time to time. This one wasn't even hard though - it was blindingly obvious, and the NZ military, and the militaries of the partners that NZ operates with, are all better off for the decision that was made.

PS. I couldn't care less about Labour party policy - I am conservative, and I support increased military spending. But I don't support wasted military spending, and the pathetic strike capability NZ could afford would be a waste compared to what can be achieved elsewhere by investing in excellence. Then the NZ forces (and it should be just one force, albeit retaining existing uniforms for different arms) can be strong and proud.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

After WWII how much did a plane cost? They were dime a dozen, surplus from the war.

Something of a non-sequiter given the vast numbers produced for the war reduced unit cost to ridiculously low levels and as production tailed off the per unit cost rose, and rose again as the jets came in , and in doing so the price went back up to what would be pre-war levels, iirc. Its worth noting that the purchase of 30 Wellington bombers by the first Labour government was considered better value for the same money than an additional cruiser for the inherent flexibility of a strike wing for our purposes, iirc.

NZ simply can't compete today though. Even when it spends the vast resources to train pilots to a high enough level to enable them to fly strike aircraft (which it can only afford low quality versions of anyway), those pilots are stolen by airforces which provide better opportunities / higher salaries.

Did you not read what I wrote above? you are aware that a strike arm was certainly feasible for our purposes when its was funded properly. 1% GDP cannot fund a 2% GDP defence force, I would have thought that to be obvious. Greater spending was affordable in the 80's and earlier, even when the economy was bad, so to say it is not now is inherently indefensible and illogical an argument as demonstrated by history.

It's just foolish to try to compete at something NZ is incapable of competing in today.

Only because we refuse to spend at historical levels, and that is a political choice.

While in a pipe dream NZ would have the resources to be great at everything, the reality is it is a small poor country,

If you think NZ is poor then you need to visit some of the Pacific island nations or Africa as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

that can at best put together a world class infantry combat force instead of a laughing stock.

Actually, no we cannot even do that, because we do not have the resources for sustained low level combat, or anything higher, as demonstrated by the latest Defence report. We cannot enter the army into combat, we have no equipment reserves, inadequate reserves of trained personnel certainly no equipped reserve units, let alone the corporate knowledge of how to effectively fight within a brigade letalone a division.

Those forces can train, and become an integral part of, and a useful part of, the forces of the countries NZ works with.

NZ forces cannot be sustained overseas due to the fact that we do not have the equipment and reserves of personnel and material necessary to make that happen, therefore working, and eventually training, along side others on operations becomes impossible , QED.

The idea that NZ will ever go it alone anywhere, and needs to build up the capability for that, is just nonesense.

Don't be dishonest, I never said that we would outside of local defence, which given a 'serious war' we would have to do as there would be no help forthcoming, I refer you to the WW2 situation as an example.
Don't put word in my mouth in future.

 

[moahunter]

As an ex-pat I can assure you that NZ is small and poor relative to the western world, there is a reason it cannot retian its best and brightest, be they pilots or businesspeople. Are their poorer countries? Yes. Are there lessons to be learned from other countries? Yes. The Canadian Forces are a very good model for NZ to look at (no - I am not saying NZ needs F18's).

NZ should IMO increase its military spend. But not to fly second hand strike aircraft for jet plane fan boys. Rather, to enahnce it's army with the latest and greatest, integrated with an effective Naval patrol / logistics arm, and Airforce logistics arm. Make a small world class force to be truley proud of, not a hotch potch force constrained from flawed doctrines of the past. Leave the Top Gun stuff, to those who can afford it, and have the size and opportunities to be able to retain it.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

As an ex-pat I can assure you that NZ is small and poor relative to the western world, there is a reason it cannot retian its best and brightest, be they pilots or businesspeople. Are their poorer countries? Yes.

Oh, way to shift the goalposts,your intellectual dishonesty continues to amaze given the nature of the conversation to date. Not only did you not mention by what measure you make such a statement, you still fail to acknowledge that NZ could and did maintain a an airstrike arm with higher defence spending in its past despite various economic woes. That we did so is ample evidence that its 'affordability' was, and is, a matter of politics and ideology, nothing more.

Are there lessons to be learned from other countries? Yes. The Canadian Forces are a very good model for NZ to look at (no - I am not saying NZ needs F18's).

Who ever said anything about learning any 'lessons' from other nations? or are you about to build up some sort of dishonest strawman argument?

NZ should IMO increase its military spend.

And here comes the golden mean fallacy...

But not to fly second hand strike aircraft for jet plane fan boys. Rather, to enahnce it's army with the latest and greatest, integrated with an effective Naval patrol / logistics arm, and Airforce logistics arm. Make a small world class force to be truley proud of, not a hotch potch force constrained from flawed doctrines of the past.

Yep, there's the golden mean fallacy, right on schedule, along with a ad-homenim to boot. By stating you think defence spending should rise in agreement with me or others, does not invalidate the argument of an airstrike arm to a adequate defence force.
What you seem to be incapable of realising is that an army, properly trained for warfare, or navy for that matter, cannot do its job without being part of a balanced force.

What is truly disturbing is that you are rattling of subjective equipment lists without an analysis of NZ's interests in the world and threats to those interests, its like buying tools without a plan for what to do with them. So why don't you try and justify your statements with some attempt at research and analysis?.

Leave the Top Gun stuff, to those who can afford it, and have the size and opportunities to be able to retain it.

As I have stated previously, and you have dishonestly ignored thus far, is that we did maintain an airstrike arm perfectly well for our requirements for decades without issue, so your statements that we cannot afford to do so are demonstrably false, and an outright fabrication.
Oh, and can you at least try and not simply repeat Labour policy as if it were some kind of fact? its becoming tiresome, start backing your arguments with some attempt at research.

 

[moahunter]

Oh, and can you at least try and not simply repeat Labour policy as if it were some kind of fact? its becoming tiresome, start backing your arguments with some attempt at research.

I'm not sure why you call my opinions dishonest simply because they don't agree with yours. As I stated, I am not a labour party supporter. I hate to break it to you though, but the National Party is unlikely to reinstate strike aircraft either, as they simply don't make sense on a bang for buck basis for NZ.

Did NZ have strike aircraft in the past? Yes. Were they used frequently in combat? No. Were they costly, outdated and to few to reach any useful critical mass? Yes. Could such resources be better spent? IMO - yes, army helicopter support and better sea patrol capability jump to mind. Are strike aircraft needed to defend NZ? IMO no, no more than NZ needs interceptors, aircraft carriers or submarines. Will NZ forces need to be supported by strike aircraft in some situations? Yes - just like in some situations it will need to be supported by air superiority aircraft, and similar. It simply isn't feasible to do it all though. IMO NZ should seek to align itself more closely with Aussie and the US (ANZUS should be revived), and build world class capabilities that compliment and enhance the Australian forces or those of other allies, not trying to emulate in an inferior manner. You can go on believing otherwise if you want with respect to Strike aircraft, you are welcome to your opinion, it's not one that is going to be acted on by anyone, and that's not because anyone else is stupid and you are smart.

 

[Sea Toby]

Oh, way to shift the goalposts,your intellectual dishonesty continues to amaze given the nature of the conversation to date. Not only did you not mention by what measure you make such a statement, you still fail to acknowledge that NZ could and did maintain a an airstrike arm with higher defence spending in its past despite various economic woes. That we did so is ample evidence that its 'affordability' was, and is, a matter of politics and ideology, nothing more.



Who ever said anything about learning any 'lessons' from other nations? or are you about to build up some sort of dishonest strawman argument?



And here comes the golden mean fallacy...



Yep, there's the golden mean fallacy, right on schedule, along with a ad-homenim to boot. By stating you think defence spending should rise in agreement with me or others, does not invalidate the argument of an airstrike arm to a adequate defence force.
What you seem to be incapable of realising is that an army, properly trained for warfare, or navy for that matter, cannot do its job without being part of a balanced force.

What is truly disturbing is that you are rattling of subjective equipment lists without an analysis of NZ's interests in the world and threats to those interests, its like buying tools without a plan for what to do with them. So why don't you try and justify your statements with some attempt at research and analysis?.





As I have stated previously, and you have dishonestly ignored thus far, is that we did maintain an airstrike arm perfectly well for our requirements for decades without issue, so your statements that we cannot afford to do so are demonstrably false, and an outright fabrication.
Oh, and can you at least try and not simply repeat Labour policy as if it were some kind of fact? its becoming tiresome, start backing your arguments with some attempt at research.

As has been noted before, the day Labour killed the air combat force, to save $700 million over ten years, yes $70 million a year, it wasn't long before Labour increased the arts budget guess what, $70 million a year. How can anyone believe New Zealand could not afford an air combat force? Surely, Kiwis are capable of seeing and understanding shell games! Not to mention a string of years of surpluses, way above $700 million per year.

On top of it all, the 28 F-16s, cream puffs all, were cancelled to save $110 million to lease them for ten years. No doubt heir costs could have easily been paid by any of the huge surpluses.

While once upon a time New Zealand had a small air combat force, providing jobs for hard working low paid airmen, both on the ground and in the air, now they are gone, sacked. The very same technical personnel that could have filled the ranks of the navy and army.

No one I know where confounded by this political shell game. Bleeding heart liberal do gooders resented spending 1 percent GDP on defence. Period.

Whist the average poor American taxpayers are stuck with the trillions of debt bailing out the banks, who thanks to bleeding heart liberals created unfixed loans for poor homebuyers. The economy was great until the unfixed interest rates went up beyond the capacity for the poor homeowners to pay their mortages. All of a sudden the rent of one house on New York Ave. became a hotel on Boardwalk.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I'm not sure why you call my opinions dishonest simply because they don't agree with yours.

I am correctly calling you dishonest because you are stating your opinion as fact.

As I stated, I am not a labour party supporter.

Where?, I may have missed it, of course, but certainly your statements to date are almost a carbon copy of published Labour policy.

I hate to break it to you though, but the National Party is unlikely to reinstate strike aircraft either, as they simply don't make sense on a bang for buck basis for NZ.

National wont bring them back because they lack the intellectual horsepower to plan a proper defence policy, which is why they promise a defence whitepaper, so someone else can do it for them. Its not because the capability is not needed.
The public, correctly, did not tolerate, and would not vote for, their previous attempts at defence policy which consisted of "we have to have them because we have always had them". The public knows nothing of defence matters, but they can, to their credit, spot a defence policy that is not backed by fact or analysis.

Did NZ have strike aircraft in the past? Yes. Were they used frequently in combat? No.

Neither have any other services been in combat, other than the SAS, yet we still have them, not that any of them can be used in combat. Perhaps we should scrap the armed forces, except for the SAS because they haven't been in combat for decades? after all that was the rationale for scrapping the air strike wing.

Were they costly, outdated and to few to reach any useful critical mass? Yes.

While costly (what isnt?), and outdated they were about to be replaced. Now would you care to supply evidence to sustain your argument that they lacked critical mass for our requirements?

Could such resources be better spent? IMO - yes, army helicopter support and better sea patrol capability jump to mind.

All of which could be provided for, as well as a strike arm, if defence spending was adequate. But that's one of the dishonest aspects of Labours defence rhetoric, and yours; keep defence spending below historic levels without any public rationale for why it was at that level and why spending should be kept low, then claim we cannot afford certain capabilities. Works like a charm, that, unless you know something of history and can look at a map of the world and compare it to a nations vital interests.

Are strike aircraft needed to defend NZ? IMO no, no more than NZ needs interceptors, aircraft carriers or submarines.

And you base this on what? Any evidence or credible analysis? It was thought to be needed for decades, but all of a sudden its not, what has changed, care to show why?

Will NZ forces need to be supported by strike aircraft in some situations? Yes - just like in some situations it will need to be supported by air superiority aircraft, and similar. It simply isn't feasible to do it all though.

And no one has suggested that NZ should 'do it all' but the above is curious, can you state where or why NZ would need strike aircraft?. I can think of a number of reasons, but can you? Justify the above, please.

IMO NZ should seek to align itself more closely with Aussie and the US (ANZUS should be revived),

And get them to do the things you dont want us to do for ourselves, and used to? what if they say no?

and build world class capabilities that compliment and enhance the Australian forces or those of other allies, not trying to emulate in an inferior manner.

Why? to allow our defence and foreign policy to become dependent upon Australia's in any situation that requires use of force, because that would be the result.

You can go on believing otherwise if you want with respect to Strike aircraft, you are welcome to your opinion, it's not one that is going to be acted on by anyone, and that's not because anyone else is stupid and you are smart.

Lol, defence policies come and go, its all a question of what can be sold to the public. The situation we have now is only because people like you have no knowledge of history and are intellectually dishonest. If you want to repeat any more labour party fabrications, might I suggest you visit the library and educate yourself, you might make yourself a little more believable.

I stated earlier on that the strike arm was politically unaffordable, not financially unaffordable as demonstrated by history, I wonder if you understand the difference?