A lot depends on the ongoing costs to keep upgrading the F18s and certainly this government wouldnt want to be looking at a service life upgrade on them within a 5-10 year gap. This is the most significant issue with the F18s.
The other factor is the serviceability with keeping a dual engine aircraft properly maintained. Dual engines are more expensive due to their economy and parts requirements and would have to be gas gulping as well. Not something this government would look kindly on. The one thing that is good is its maritime ability and its mission delivery systems which has seen constant upgrades over the years.
However in saying all this NZ does not require this type of aircraft to integrate its force structure. We dont need a heavy air defence squadron but one that combines maritime, air defence and fighter bomber roles all at the same time. For NZ to become a regional power all we need is to fill this gap with a couple of small squadrons of advanced trainers that have the fighter bomber capacity along with a reasonable engagement range.
It is true that the world is swamped with second hand aircraft that could be bought for very good prices thus offsetting the costs of set up proceedures on training pilots and infrastructure which by the way we already have. What we have to remember though in the choice is that NZ is able to get parts quickly and have a supply of them, that the aircraft have good maritime and safety records that they also have good service life abilities to keep them going without expensive maintenance overhalls in the mean time. It is getting the biggest bang for the buck and if the Grippen or F16 fill this role then thats going to be far better. Maybe the F16 may be back on the agenda when National gets back into government.
Yes, its been suggested the Hawk 200 120+ as an example and its this type of aircraft that would be ideal to NZ conditions.
Agree, F16 or Gripen etc would be cheaper to purchase and operate, and fullfil the roles that NZ requires (CAS, maritime strike etc) these are important factors.
On the other hand, ex-RAAF F/A-18's shouldn't be written off just yet. Sure, more costly to operate (which will be an issue, but then again the RNZAF's new NH90's are far, far more costly to operate per hour than the UH1H, and the govt accepted this when choosing the NH90). The RAAF F/A18's are equipped with the better APG73 radar system, carry the Harpoon antiship missle, AMRAAM, AIM7/AIM9, LGB's etc and would be ideal for maritime strike, CAS, interdiction, and NZ's other low priority requirement, air to air defence (mind you if I were flying in a RNZAF P3 in a high threat environment, be that the Gulf or SE Asia, I'd be pleased to know our F18's were there alongside to wipe out any air threats)! Being twin engined the F18 would be ideal for the maritime role and flying between Pacific islands over ocean etc. Really they would only be a generation behind the F35 etc. The other good thing is the RAAF has extensive spares, extensive knowledge/skill base and training programmes and simulators etc. Hence help will be on hand for upskilling the RNZAF pilots and support crews. The other advantage is that the RAAF will be able to "quickly" pass on the air combat skills and institutional knowledge that NZ has lost with the demise of the A4's, pilots, ground and armaments crew etc.
The key would be for the RNZAF in time to receive the ex-RAAF FA18's that are being upgraded now/soon by the Aust govt (and in time, as suggested by others in these forums, RNZAF perhaps upgrade to the RAAF F/A-18G when the RAAF takes on the F35. And maybe in time, purchase new F35's once production comes on line and prices drop).
Anyway the Aust govt wears the significant cost here in sellling FA18's upgraded under the HUG programme. Like I say, it might be the political cost to be paid for NZ to re-establish its air combat force (cause it probably won't happen any other way, if it were to be done properly). But in reciprocation, NZ fast jet training joins forces with the Australians in one form or another (be that combined early or advanced jet training etc - leave that to the experts on the forum to talk about). Maybe even all done in Australia apart from basic flying, and apart from some training scheduling (or permanent basing of a small number of training aircraft in NZ for RNZAF/RAAF mountain/terrain flying training and "foreign" country operations/familiarisation/training etc). Let's face it, it is going to be hard for NZ to do this (justify the expense) all on its own now-post cold war. Joining forces with the RAAF, in some way, will ensure that the RNZAF can quickly establish an air combat force, but more importantly retain it, depending on how the political winds are blowing. This is also something similar to what Derek Quigley (govt's independent defence reviewer on policy and projects etc) alluded to recently, where he stated that NZ probably would not have lost its air combat wing if there had been a way (and willingness) to integrate our training with the Australians in the past. I happen to agree with him on this one because it would have been a political minefield for the NZ govt to opt out of such an arrangement back in 2001 etc. Note that I'm talking about shared training, not shared operational structures, as raised by others in other forums, this just wouldn't be possible and practical for a number of reasons (including our so called "independent foreign policy" that NZ govt thinks is what makes us unique)....
). But still confused on the semantics. 
