NZDF General discussion thread

[Jezza]

Yeah get them back for ( training ) purposes.

MB-339CB New Zealand version (weapons training with laser designation, radar detection, AIM-9L and AGM-65 Maverick capability - 17 survivors - in storage at RNZAF Base Woodbourne, New Zealand)
The MB-339 has the capability to carry a wide variety of US and NATO standard external stores under six wing hardpoints.
"The aircraft is powered by the 4,400lb thrust Rolls-Royce Viper 680 engine."
The weapons inventory includes: DEFA 30mm gun (125 rounds per pod); anti-runway bombs; BAP-100 or BAT-120 tactical support bombs; rocket launchers for 50, 68, 81mm and 2.75in rockets; LAU-10a for US 127mm rockets or TB-100-4 launchers for French 100mm rockets; up to two Raytheon Maverick air-to-ground missiles; Matra BAe Dynamics Magic or AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles; and Alenia MK-2A Marte air-to-ship missile.

Just dont let anyone see them armed.
And when something happens at least they could
be armed up

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mb339/

 

[dave_kiwi]

NZ ARMY ISTAR Battle Lab & Exercise Wolf

Just to show the NZDF is not completely with its head in the sand when it comes to this:

From ARMY NEWS 378

"Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) are the focus of the newly formed Intelligence Surveillance Targeting and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) Battlelab in 16 Field Regiment".

http://www.army.mil.nz/at-a-glance/news/army-news/378/naib.htm

Also Exercise Wolf, Prts 1, 2 have some interesting news re 5 & 3 SQN working in with the NZ Army. Seems the "electro optic" upgrade on the P3-K is proving useful

"A P3 Orion from 5 Sqn provided not only detailed information on the target but an excellent C2 platform"

http://www.army.mil.nz/at-a-glance/news/army-news/377/ew.htm

Exercise Wolf: ARMY NEWS 377 / 378

http://www.army.mil.nz/at-a-glance/news/army-news/default.htm

Third part of Exercise Wolf to take place later this year, will involve HMNZ Canterbury

Looks like the "number eight fencing wire" approach aint dead yet

NOTE: not sure it really belongs here .. BUT couldn't seem to find a dedicated NZ Army thread

 

[KiwiRob]

The one problem we have in NZ is this system of MMP,in the days of 1st past the post the Goverment had a free rein to do what it wanted but this bloodly MMP means that if National wants to form a Goverment it has to hook up with smaller parties such as NZFirst which is pro-defence force but we then have the Greens and we know how they feel about the Forces let alone a combat wing!
National wants a Combat Wing but the shit-fight that will happen within political circles if National gets into power and moots this idea,what brasses me off is that the majority of NZers want a combat wing but the Goverment along with the Greens do what they feel like...thats MMP for you!
While im for the idea of joint ANZAC force if anyone can rebuild the combat wing the RNZAF can..Heck they keep 40 year old aircraft going and going well

Well the latest polls have been showing that if we had an election soon National would win a majority on its own without the need of any of the minority parties, most of the minor parties would probably disappear, MMP is a complete waste of time IMO.

 

[KiwiRob]

I agree, if Australia and New Zealand had a common foreign/defence policy then a joint ADF/NZDF would work. However, due to different political policies, there would be potential political problems with deployments. I don't see this changing short of Australia and New Zealand merging into one country. IIRC there was (is?) a provision during Federation, for New Zealand to merge with the other colonies that became Australia. But I'm digressing into a political, not military, question.

'Although New Zealand chose not to take any further part in the federation process after preliminary discussions, their representatives primary success was to ensure that New Zealand could, at any time she pleases, enter into the Commonwealth of Australia as a State without the need for approval from the other States. It is for this reason that New Zealand is included within section 6 of the Preamble to the Australian Constitution.'

More info on this can be found here


http://www.geocities.com/nzstatehood/index.html

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

All that's required is for NZ to hold a referendum, the mechanics are already in place. NZ is actually defined as a state in the Australian Constitution. NZ had representatives at the Australasian Convention and Conferences that took place prior to Federation, Fiji was also represented. The only downside to federation in my opinion would be the loss of the All Blacks and having to say H in a funny way.

If you want to find out more this is a great link http://www.geocities.com/nzstatehood/index.html

Really??? Every time I've been across the tasman I've been impressed by how much you kiwi's love being kiwi's and love beating Aussies!!!

There just seems to be too much emotion in the issue. It makes sense in political and economic terms for you guys to do so but i cant see it happening.

 

[KiwiRob]

I have no problem with NZ becoming part of Australia, maybe if we did our best and brightest would not leave NZ for Australia as they do now, ie 1 doctor per week is leaving NZ for Aussie. Had we federated in 1901 I believe NZ would be in a much better state of affairs than has been in the past and undoubtibly in the future. Besides we can join any time we want to, I believe the day will come eventually.

 

[Markus40]

Some interesting comments from Dr Mapp here over Nationals supposed Defence posture once they arrive into government.

The idea of a third OPV is a good one based on the concept of not purchasing a third frigate. However i do agree that NZs needs as a Blue water maritime Navy is more to our immediate needs than one of patrolling, which has a capability due to Project Protector already. Upgrading the OPVs to a level that can assist our ANZACs sounds like good business sense especially with the short fall of search radar and adequate self defensive systems. However as mentioned the Navys role is Blue Water in this part of the world and the extra frigate is by far more the better option.

As to the LCS, well, im not to sure about that option to be honest as NZs requirements are far broader, and i think it would be far better to keep the OPV and upgrade them than go down the path of LCS.

As to the Airforce i do think this is a conundrum to both parties at present, but i think National over my talks with John Carter earlier and recently with Dr Mapp myself it was evident that National was playing the Air Combat policy card close to their chest, and nothing could be ruled out. But i can understand this stance due to being a big political desision and one they wouldnt want to bring up prior to the coming election. As to the Macchis labour has in recent years been warming to the idea of having a strike air wing back into our forces and it doesnt come as a surprise that Mapps comments over Dr Goffs comments suggests that Labour themselves would be willing to have them back in the air. There has been talk among ex A4 pilots that i know that this seems to be the case.

The A400M is a very good consideration as the replacement for the C130 due to its range and capacity. Something NZ defence forces urgently require. However in saying that it is far more likely that the C130 will operate for years to come before more is known about the true capability and operational standard of this particular aircraft. By then NZ will be in a more favourable position to make any purchases due to price and faster ease of delivery due to the timing factor.

Short range maritime patrol makes sense and is something the current government has been making considerations about in their Long Term Defence procurement. Overall i think everything seems to be on track and fairly balanced, and the light patrol force for the Army needs to be more closely defined.

Recently had a 1:1 with National's defence spokesman Wayne Mapp (boy can politicians talk!). Got a fairly good idea of what to expect under a National party defence policy.

Disclaimer: Any such policy is not yet formulated so the following is only my interpretation of our discussion...

Basically National is now fairly comfortable with what Labour has done with the NZDF - however they want to consolidate that in a few areas.

Army:
Focus is manpower & retention, with a possible view to raising a 3rd batallion, but much work to be done yet in this area. 'Light Patrol Force' looks like their buzzword (not sure I like the sound of it either!) :unknown

Navy:
Frigates - would still like to look at option for a 3rd, but appreciates this may be unlikely given manning issues etc. OPV uparming more likely (see below).
Questions the need to upgrade ANZACs versus replacing although with replacement sometime out there is serious consideration of aligning our ANZACs with RAN equivalents.
Dr Mapp shows keen interest in LCS as a replacement, not so much by virtue of their specialist (niche) capability but more on their affordabilty (no numbers discussed).

OPVs - keen to look at option of limited uparming OPV's to provide some back-up for ANZACs (esp. wants to see ability to counter FIAC with shoulder fired SSM). Don't expect to see a major uparming - but enough to provide serious Patrol capability - 57mm gun & rear facing RWS seem options as does some form of search radar (vs pure Nav radar as fitted).
Also sees the case for a 3rd OPV.

MRV - didn't discuss much & doesn't seem to be a concern for him - pity with it lack of any serious defensive capability - even against FIAC.

AirForce:
Air Combat force - sorry guys, this is definitely off the agenda!

Jet trainers (Aermacchi) - he's keen to investigate this, although it seems more as a point of difference to Labour than for it's actual value. Would be stirctly in a training role as cost must be kept down. BUT get this - he states that the Minister of Defence (Phil Goff) has actually stated to him that if the RNZAF came asking him if they could use them NOW for training, he wouldn't have a probelm with them doing so!!! So suggests it's as much a dysfunctional RNZAF/NZDF as anything that's grounded them! To be fair they've been gutted by the Govt so maybe I'm being a bit harsh!

Air Transports - he supports starting work on replacements soon - RNZAF have stated they want A400M's!

Maritime patrol - also supports looking at replacemenst for these - suspect a 'more affordable' (ie: less capable) aircraft may be favoured.

T/LUH - Strongly feels that the hgh cost of NH-90 operation will lead to a requirement for significantly more T/LUH (possibly 20) to perform more of the 'smaller' tasks where full NH-90 capacity isn't needed. No obvious opinion on arming either type beyond door mounted M-60's.

Summary:
Anything not covered wasn't discussed, and policy is yet to be refined. Looks like the NZDF will remain a 'light' force...just hope there's no NASTY surprises!

 

[Markus40]

The only purpose the MB339s would be good for would be for training our Armed Forces and for light Maritime patrol. They lack a whole lot of range when armed up, and as they have no in flight refueling capability this makes them very restrictive in what they can do. The MB339c has a range of 1,760 km (1,100 mi). And thats not armed up with the extras. Not enough as you can see for what NZ needs.

Due to our region, and in realistic terms NZ would at least require an aircraft that could reach Australia and reach other parts of the Pacific. I think an aircraft that has the "whole" package, would be a far more cost effective and have more operational usefullness than a MB339C. Cheers.

Yeah get them back for ( training ) purposes.

MB-339CB New Zealand version (weapons training with laser designation, radar detection, AIM-9L and AGM-65 Maverick capability - 17 survivors - in storage at RNZAF Base Woodbourne, New Zealand)
The MB-339 has the capability to carry a wide variety of US and NATO standard external stores under six wing hardpoints.
"The aircraft is powered by the 4,400lb thrust Rolls-Royce Viper 680 engine."
The weapons inventory includes: DEFA 30mm gun (125 rounds per pod); anti-runway bombs; BAP-100 or BAT-120 tactical support bombs; rocket launchers for 50, 68, 81mm and 2.75in rockets; LAU-10a for US 127mm rockets or TB-100-4 launchers for French 100mm rockets; up to two Raytheon Maverick air-to-ground missiles; Matra BAe Dynamics Magic or AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles; and Alenia MK-2A Marte air-to-ship missile.

Just dont let anyone see them armed.
And when something happens at least they could
be armed up

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mb339/

 

[jase1]

While the MB339 aint the ideali aircraft for NZ its a start and it would require not a hell of a lot of money to get them up to scratch unlike the Skyhawks which are to far gone to get up and running.
Would Labour really look at getting the MB339s going or are they to worried about egg on there face? but then in saying that the public thinks of the fast jet wing as ....Skyhawks not Macchis.
I so hope that whoever wins 08 really considers the MB339

 

[Markus40]

It may be a start, but i think in the long term having an aircraft that has better operational abilities would make alot more sense by investing the money right from the start into the long term setting up costs of an aircraft that does the job than having a half pie job such as the MB339s. I think any government in NZ if considering this option seriously would have to look at the bigger picture by looking at the long term aims and what meets NZs Maritime and Defence Force requirements such as the large distances between bases not to mention the ongoing alliances NZ has with other countries.

NZ has Defence relationships with Singapore, Malaysia and Australia just to name a few and what we have is meeting the demands of training with these countries. Just. However if we are to field MB339s which of course we cant, is going to look a bit weak in the face of F18s and F16s and F5s, not to mention the recent Su30s. Cheers.

While the MB339 aint the ideali aircraft for NZ its a start and it would require not a hell of a lot of money to get them up to scratch unlike the Skyhawks which are to far gone to get up and running.
Would Labour really look at getting the MB339s going or are they to worried about egg on there face? but then in saying that the public thinks of the fast jet wing as ....Skyhawks not Macchis.
I so hope that whoever wins 08 really considers the MB339

 

[Aussie Digger]

The only purpose the MB339s would be good for would be for training our Armed Forces and for light Maritime patrol. They lack a whole lot of range when armed up, and as they have no in flight refueling capability this makes them very restrictive in what they can do. The MB339c has a range of 1,760 km (1,100 mi). And thats not armed up with the extras. Not enough as you can see for what NZ needs.

Due to our region, and in realistic terms NZ would at least require an aircraft that could reach Australia and reach other parts of the Pacific. I think an aircraft that has the "whole" package, would be a far more cost effective and have more operational usefullness than a MB339C. Cheers.

Mate, with all due respect, you've GOT to be realistic.

NEITHER major political party is interested in acquiring a substantial air combat capability. That has been abundantly clear time and time again. I have no great experience with NZ politicians, but some experience with Australian politicians. If the issue is not "critical" they are usually not interested. Particularly in an issue that provides few additional votes one way or the other.

I think pushing to get the MB-339's into service would be much more productive than "pie in the sky" acquisitions...

 

[Todjaeger]

It may be a start, but i think in the long term having an aircraft that has better operational abilities would make alot more sense by investing the money right from the start into the long term setting up costs of an aircraft that does the job than having a half pie job such as the MB339s. I think any government in NZ if considering this option seriously would have to look at the bigger picture by looking at the long term aims and what meets NZs Maritime and Defence Force requirements such as the large distances between bases not to mention the ongoing alliances NZ has with other countries.

NZ has Defence relationships with Singapore, Malaysia and Australia just to name a few and what we have is meeting the demands of training with these countries. Just. However if we are to field MB339s which of course we cant, is going to look a bit weak in the face of F18s and F16s and F5s, not to mention the recent Su30s. Cheers.

If the MB-339 become operational, the RNZAF wouldn't be having them enter service, they would be re-entering service. The NZDF already owns them, it would basically need to setup the logistics and support services needed for them to be in active service.

Also, if (big IF) NZ were to somehow restart andAir Combat element using some sort of modern fighter, the pilots who would serve in the Air Combat element would need fast jet training. This would mean that NZ either reactivated the MB-339 anyway, sought a replacement jet-trainer, or entered into an agreement with a foreign country to have RNZAF pilots trained overseas. At present, I believe only Canada, the US and the UK might have sufficient openings available for fast jet training to be done. France might be able to do so as well, not sure, but then there would also be a potential language issue as well.

Also, in all likelihood, the fast jet training element would be activated 1-3 years prior to the start of an Air Combat element, because a cadre of pilots with sufficient fast jet experience would be needed to train as the Air Combat element. Given that NZ already owns a number of fast jet trainers, it seems to make the most sense having those enter service. It can allow the NZ government to restart an Air Combat element in the future, while also allowing the rest of the NZDF to get experience cooperating with fast jets, or to exercise defending against them.

-Cheers

 

[regstrup]

If (again a BIG if) NZ Airforce is to have an Air Combat Element it would be a waste of money to estabish the training for fighterpilotes i NZ. It would be much more costeffective to get the pilotes trained in Canada or the USA.

Then it would be a good idea to re-entering the MB339 jettrainers to keep up the new pilotes flyingtraining until a combatplane is purchased and operational. Then the MB339 could be sold to save ressources and keep the pilotes and combatplanes operational as a strong part of the NZDF.

 

[Tasman]

If the MB-339 become operational, the RNZAF wouldn't be having them enter service, they would be re-entering service. The NZDF already owns them, it would basically need to setup the logistics and support services needed for them to be in active service.

Agreed.

Also, if (big IF) NZ were to somehow restart andAir Combat element using some sort of modern fighter, the pilots who would serve in the Air Combat element would need fast jet training. This would mean that NZ either reactivated the MB-339 anyway, sought a replacement jet-trainer, or entered into an agreement with a foreign country to have RNZAF pilots trained overseas. At present, I believe only Canada, the US and the UK might have sufficient openings available for fast jet training to be done. France might be able to do so as well, not sure, but then there would also be a potential language issue as well.

A co-operative effort with the RAAF would make a lot of sense. The present and planned RAAF program could be expanded to become a joint efort by the two airforces.

Also, in all likelihood, the fast jet training element would be activated 1-3 years prior to the start of an Air Combat element, because a cadre of pilots with sufficient fast jet experience would be needed to train as the Air Combat element. Given that NZ already owns a number of fast jet trainers, it seems to make the most sense having those enter service. It can allow the NZ government to restart an Air Combat element in the future, while also allowing the rest of the NZDF to get experience cooperating with fast jets, or to exercise defending against them.

Totally agree. It seems to me that it would be a missed opportunity not to re-activate these aircraft whilst NZ still has a cadre of pilots with fast jet experience. It would ensure that NZ will be well placed to re enter the fast air combat business if changed circumstances require it in the future.


Cheers

 

[Markus40]

I dont think i could be more REALISTIC than what i have suggested.

Maybe you have missed my point a little here, on the basis that i was argueing this issue on the basis of "IF" and not when. It is true that if the politicians dont have any interest in the reinstatement then our arguments are pointless. However one member did suggest that DR Mapp stated that Goff said "if the RNZAF was interested in bringing back the MB339s then he would be happy to consider it". However in my point of view and as i tried to make the point clear that unless the government was willing to put in any money at all into such a role then it would make political and economic sense to start looking at long term benefits into a combat proven and sensible assesments into an aircraft that has the whole package and not half the capability it has.

Therefore pushing money into the reinstatement of the MB339s as a trainer is a futile and useless endeavour in the long term UNLESS there is a clear strategy for the government to be looking into purchasing additional aircraft for use in the Air/Maritime Defence role, and the MB339 used as trainer to the top tier aircraft.

To conclude, it is far better to exclude the trainer than to include it and have the RNZAF continue the way it is than to throw away money on trainers without a long term goal of adding them to a squadron of top tier aircraft that has the capabilities that i have described in my previous thread.

Mate, with all due respect, you've GOT to be realistic.

NEITHER major political party is interested in acquiring a substantial air combat capability. That has been abundantly clear time and time again. I have no great experience with NZ politicians, but some experience with Australian politicians. If the issue is not "critical" they are usually not interested. Particularly in an issue that provides few additional votes one way or the other.

I think pushing to get the MB-339's into service would be much more productive than "pie in the sky" acquisitions...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I dont think i could be more REALISTIC than what i have suggested.

Maybe you have missed my point a little here, on the basis that i was argueing this issue on the basis of "IF" and not when. It is true that if the politicians dont have any interest in the reinstatement then our arguments are pointless. However one member did suggest that DR Mapp stated that Goff said "if the RNZAF was interested in bringing back the MB339s then he would be happy to consider it". However in my point of view and as i tried to make the point clear that unless the government was willing to put in any money at all into such a role then it would make political and economic sense to start looking at long term benefits into a combat proven and sensible assesments into an aircraft that has the whole package and not half the capability it has.

Therefore pushing money into the reinstatement of the MB339s as a trainer is a futile and useless endeavour in the long term UNLESS there is a clear strategy for the government to be looking into purchasing additional aircraft for use in the Air/Maritime Defence role, and the MB339 used as trainer to the top tier aircraft.

To conclude, it is far better to exclude the trainer than to include it and have the RNZAF continue the way it is than to throw away money on trainers without a long term goal of adding them to a squadron of top tier aircraft that has the capabilities that i have described in my previous thread.

I disagree I'm afraid. NZ seems to stand NO chance of regaining a "top tier" combat aircraft.

If that National Party politician is to be believed and he actually gets into a position to change the status quo, then a reinstatement of the MB-339C's is a possibility. There's quite a few steps to get there though.

Both parties have however (I've read previously) categorically ruled out any new acquisition of a fighter aircraft. If both major political parties have this attitude don't you consider it somewhat akin to banging your head against a brickwall advocating one should be acquired?

Hence why I suggest you're not being entirely realistic. You have next to know chance of gaining F-16's or Gripens or whatever platform excites you. What you do have is a chance to get SOME capability for fast jet operations in the form of the MB-339C's being re-activated.

The MB-339C's could provide excellent training for your naval frigates and land based GBAD capability. They could provide (at a pinch) aerial reconnaisance capability and a limited aerial fire support capability and SOME airspace control and maritime interdiction capability.

Expecting or wishing for anything else seems futile to me. The need is really irrelevent.

I'd personally like to see the RNZAF regain an air combat capability with a modern fighter type. I just don't think it's ever going to happen.

 

[Markus40]

Reentering or entering service-i think you got my point regardless.

My point about the MB339 and it makes complete sense that the government needs to have a full comprehensive policy on what it wants with the Air Combat element as a whole within the RNZAF. You cant enter the existing trainers without having them used for what they were built for-Training. To do this requires pilots to undergo specialised fast jet training for their natural step into the cockpit of a Top Tier aircraft. Using them just as a trainer for pilot training and some Defence force training is only going to see our pilots find jobs overseas, because they cant find their natural step into FULL jet fighter pilot roles. It doesnt take an idiot to figure this out.

Therefore it is way more sensible to integrate the MB339 into a long term Air Combat force policy that includes an element of a top tier front line aircraft than have them fly on their own which is a complete waste of money in my opinion. The clear goal needs to be one of a greater ideology of Air Combat for this countries needs than one where, "well lets get the MB339 back in service and lets see what happens" mentality. No government is going to ,take reinstatements unless there is a clear policy on the future of air combat in this country. Period. So forget about the MB339 coming back, unless the government issues a clear directive to reopening the air combat debate. Cheers.

If the MB-339 become operational, the RNZAF wouldn't be having them enter service, they would be re-entering service. The NZDF already owns them, it would basically need to setup the logistics and support services needed for them to be in active service.

Also, if (big IF) NZ were to somehow restart andAir Combat element using some sort of modern fighter, the pilots who would serve in the Air Combat element would need fast jet training. This would mean that NZ either reactivated the MB-339 anyway, sought a replacement jet-trainer, or entered into an agreement with a foreign country to have RNZAF pilots trained overseas. At present, I believe only Canada, the US and the UK might have sufficient openings available for fast jet training to be done. France might be able to do so as well, not sure, but then there would also be a potential language issue as well.

Also, in all likelihood, the fast jet training element would be activated 1-3 years prior to the start of an Air Combat element, because a cadre of pilots with sufficient fast jet experience would be needed to train as the Air Combat element. Given that NZ already owns a number of fast jet trainers, it seems to make the most sense having those enter service. It can allow the NZ government to restart an Air Combat element in the future, while also allowing the rest of the NZDF to get experience cooperating with fast jets, or to exercise defending against them.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Reentering or entering service-i think you got my point regardless.

My point about the MB339 and it makes complete sense that the government needs to have a full comprehensive policy on what it wants with the Air Combat element as a whole within the RNZAF. You cant enter the existing trainers without having them used for what they were built for-Training. To do this requires pilots to undergo specialised fast jet training for their natural step into the cockpit of a Top Tier aircraft. Using them just as a trainer for pilot training and some Defence force training is only going to see our pilots find jobs overseas, because they cant find their natural step into FULL jet fighter pilot roles. It doesnt take an idiot to figure this out.

Therefore it is way more sensible to integrate the MB339 into a long term Air Combat force policy that includes an element of a top tier front line aircraft than have them fly on their own which is a complete waste of money in my opinion. The clear goal needs to be one of a greater ideology of Air Combat for this countries needs than one where, "well lets get the MB339 back in service and lets see what happens" mentality. No government is going to ,take reinstatements unless there is a clear policy on the future of air combat in this country. Period. So forget about the MB339 coming back, unless the government issues a clear directive to reopening the air combat debate. Cheers.

Whatever mate. Personally I think you are going to remain frustrated whilst you stick with that line of reasoning.

NZ is not going to get a top tier air combat capability. EVER.

Neither side of politics wants it.

 

[Markus40]

No. I m sorry i completely dissagree. I think at this point it might be better to agree to disagree obviously without causing more frustration. I believe there is the chance of the Air Combat element being reinstated despite the posturing. But the MB339 wont be reinstated as i have made mention in my previous thread to another member unless there is a clear directive from the government on a long term policy of reinstating our combat force along with top tier aircraft. So dreaming of the MB339s coming back i think is just your dream, and needs a bucket of cold water to bring you back to reality, my friend.

I disagree I'm afraid. NZ seems to stand NO chance of regaining a "top tier" combat aircraft.

If that National Party politician is to be believed and he actually gets into a position to change the status quo, then a reinstatement of the MB-339C's is a possibility. There's quite a few steps to get there though.

Both parties have however (I've read previously) categorically ruled out any new acquisition of a fighter aircraft. If both major political parties have this attitude don't you consider it somewhat akin to banging your head against a brickwall advocating one should be acquired?

Hence why I suggest you're not being entirely realistic. You have next to know chance of gaining F-16's or Gripens or whatever platform excites you. What you do have is a chance to get SOME capability for fast jet operations in the form of the MB-339C's being re-activated.

The MB-339C's could provide excellent training for your naval frigates and land based GBAD capability. They could provide (at a pinch) aerial reconnaisance capability and a limited aerial fire support capability and SOME airspace control and maritime interdiction capability.

Expecting or wishing for anything else seems futile to me. The need is really irrelevent.

I'd personally like to see the RNZAF regain an air combat capability with a modern fighter type. I just don't think it's ever going to happen.

 

[Markus40]

Where theres reason and sensible argument there is no need for frustration. I find this subject straight forward and logical to its conclusion, and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Whatever mate. Personally I think you are going to remain frustrated whilst you stick with that line of reasoning.

NZ is not going to get a top tier air combat capability. EVER.

Neither side of politics wants it.