Royal New Zealand Air Force

[battlensign]

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 No. Were they costly, outdated and to few to reach any useful critical mass?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.

I cannot believe I am about to back Stuart on this shuddernfloorl, but here it goes.........

1) Bang for buck is not an argument for not buying certain equipment when your spend on defence is 1% of GDP. If you were spending 2-3% and were still having trouble achieving objectives, then you might have an argument.

2) Your (NZ's) strategic assets are distance from beligerants, proximity to Aus, access to tech and money. That's it. You need work within these assets. Synergy with Aus in some aspects of force structure is fine in some cases, but ultimately NZ is its own country and ought to be able to support its own interests -which may not always be the same as those of Aus. So synergy with Aus is a guiding principle not an absolute law.

3) You claim that NZ had an ACF capability that was old, costly, little used and not of 'critical mass'. In response I note that NZ had the option to replace with 28 F-16s which would have been critical mass (and outmatched the Indo airforce for example) and an invaluable asset to Coalition ops in the region. For example, were East Timor played out in 2008 rather than 1999 the F-16s could have been an additional squadron sent to tindal etc.

4) There is a limit on the size of the army that NZ can generate. Small population. NZ needs to rely on manned solutions that are incredibly efficient (i.e. high potency per person required) and in the future non-manned solutions.

Brett.

 

[greenie]

Well done Stuart, you took the words out of my mouth.
I understand that just before they were scrapped we had signed another 3 year contract with the Aussies and they were continuing to foot the bill for basing and operating 2sqn there,adding more salt to the wound for me.
On another note I was talking to a Sgt servicing the remains of 14 sqn and he was saying that the oldest of the jets was only 2600hrs BUT they had a factory warrenty up to 7500hrs.
I was sad before now Im really

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I cannot believe I am about to back Stuart on this shuddernfloorl, but here it goes.........

Now now, I may be against nukes, but I am all for strong conventional forces.

snip

2) Your (NZ's) strategic assets are distance from beligerants, proximity to Aus, access to tech and money. That's it. You need work within these assets. Synergy with Aus in some aspects of force structure is fine in some cases, but ultimately NZ is its own country and ought to be able to support its own interests -which may not always be the same as those of Aus. So synergy with Aus is a guiding principle not an absolute law.
snip

Absolutely correct. I have long held to the view that distance means nothing unless you have the ability to use it to your own advantage.
Moreover, Mr Moa (or is it miss?) seems to be unable to grasp that our interests are seldom located within the South Pacific, such interests that our quality and standard of life are dependent on, and does not grasp what that means to NZ defence wise.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Well done Stuart, you took the words out of my mouth.
I understand that just before they were scrapped we had signed another 3 year contract with the Aussies and they were continuing to foot the bill for basing and operating 2sqn there,adding more salt to the wound for me.
On another note I was talking to a Sgt servicing the remains of 14 sqn and he was saying that the oldest of the jets was only 2600hrs BUT they had a factory warrenty up to 7500hrs.
I was sad before now Im really

Enough to make a bloke cry, isn't it?

 

[battlensign]

Enough to make a bloke cry, isn't it?

No....this will make you cry:

I know the Williamtown NL Officer and he is writing a report recommending the purchase of the A4s back........ hoping the US deal goes bad. Not enough assets to train the JTACs & CAS, SH (when they come) and the Fleet AAW training (despite the 6 RAN funded hawks) as well as A2A and normal MS training. So options are either more hawks or ideally the A4s (cause of the on board weather radars). Now that NZ has scrapped their ACF we don't get to use their (your) A4s to do the AAW ttraining like we did when we had the Perth Class Destroyers and the question is what will we do when we need them to train the AWDs?

Brett.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

No....this will make you cry:

I know the Williamtown NL Officer and he is writing a report recommending the purchase of the A4s back........ hoping the US deal goes bad. Not enough assets to train the JTACs & CAS, SH (when they come) and the Fleet AAW training (despite the 6 RAN funded hawks) as well as A2A and normal MS training. So options are either more hawks or ideally the A4s (cause of the on board weather radars). Now that NZ has scrapped their ACF we don't get to use their (your) A4s to do the AAW ttraining like we did when we had the Perth Class Destroyers and the question is what will we do when we need them to train the AWDs?

Brett.

That is depressing, especially when combined with Rudd's recent comments about the Asian (read China)arms build up and the necessity to match it.

Ill go sob in the corner now.

 

[moahunter]

3) You claim that NZ had an ACF capability that was old, costly, little used and not of 'critical mass'. In response I note that NZ had the option to replace with 28 F-16s which would have been critical mass (and outmatched the Indo airforce for example) and an invaluable asset to Coalition ops in the region. For example, were East Timor played out in 2008 rather than 1999 the F-16s could have been an additional squadron sent to tindal etc.

4) There is a limit on the size of the army that NZ can generate. Small population. NZ needs to rely on manned solutions that are incredibly efficient (i.e. high potency per person required) and in the future non-manned solutions.

Brett.

NZ had the option of purchasing F16's, but even if it had, they would have ultimately needed to be upgraded substantially to operate with US and Australian forces (a bit different from an Indo airforce type situation where they operate in isolation). You only have to look at the Canadian Forces (who do need intercept / strike capability in the North due to Russian bomber threat / arctic soverignty), who have spent an arm and a leg to upgrade the CF18's so that it can operate with NATO. Now they are investing in F35's. NZ would again, be a generation behind its partners, if not two generations, even with the F16's. 2nd best just isn't good enough in today's world, investing in a military arm that will be the least capable of developed / western nations is just embarassing.

As to the bang for buck - low manpower idea, it's interesting, but the flaw is that NZ is simply unable to present interesting opportunities for these pilots. It can't afford to send them to participate in Red Flag or Maple Flag (even European nations struggle with training cost), or other training exercises, and even to the extent it does, what is to stop another Air Force from poaching the pilots (which was a serious problem with the last strike wing)?

IMO NZ should look at Australia, the U.S. and other potential partners, and think, "how can we best enhance those forces when operating with them, and at the same time, maintain good patrol / enforcement abilities and the ability to go it alone in the South Pacific (e.g. Fiji). A light force a little less capable than the SAS would be perfect, a little version of the US Rangers who would be able to work with the SAS from time to time. Rather than invest in planes, invest in computerised troop integration, UAV's, etc. Make a small world class military force of perhaps a 1,000 soldiers (or better yet, two forces of 500 so they can rotate), with terrific logistics to transport them rapidly anywhere by sea and air. Combined with world class naval patrol / picket ability (which also needs upgrading), that, IMO, would be a much better bang for buck, and a more useful one to the US and Australia than operating surplus 2nd/3rd generation strike aircraft.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip. 2nd best just isn't good enough in today's world, investing in a military arm that will be the least capable of developed / western nations is just embarassing.

While they would have needed upgrading at some point, there was always the platform capacity to accept it, which is important to remember. What you are not realising, is what mission would they have been tasked with? Unless you can answer that, and I will leave you to work it out, how can you make any realistic judgement of their worth?

As to the bang for buck - low manpower idea, it's interesting, but the flaw is that NZ is simply unable to present interesting opportunities for these pilots. It can't afford to send them to participate in Red Flag or Maple Flag (even European nations struggle with training cost), or other training exercises, and even to the extent it does, what is to stop another Air Force from poaching the pilots (which was a serious problem with the last strike wing)?

I would imagine that pay has something to do with unreasonably low defence spending. Its worth noting that NZ airforce was, and is, a reasonably regular participant in international air exercises.

IMO NZ should look at Australia, the U.S. and other potential partners, and think, "how can we best enhance those forces when operating with them, and at the same time, maintain good patrol / enforcement abilities and the ability to go it alone in the South Pacific (e.g. Fiji). A light force a little less capable than the SAS would be perfect, a little version of the US Rangers who would be able to work with the SAS from time to time.

Are you a complete imbecile? You want a force that can go it alone against Fiji? that would require a deployable brigade with the nessery amphibious transport, not that I would mind, but I question if you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. You cannot have what you want with one percent of GDP spent on defence, regardless of if we have a strike component in the airforce or not.

Rather than invest in planes, invest in computerised troop integration, UAV's, etc.

Right, and like now, any one who wanted to raid our ports and infrastructure in a major war could do so with impunity
Do you even know what "computerised troop integration" is, or did you just dream that up?

Make a small world class military force of perhaps a 1,000 soldiers (or better yet, two forces of 500 so they can rotate),

A battalion needs around a thousand soldiers, logistics and artillery puts it at around 1300, which is the minimum force that can operate independently in combat. To effectively have one unit in combat you need three units, one out, one working up and one reconstituting, this does not include support units like engineers, medical, signals and military police etc.

with terrific logistics to transport them rapidly anywhere by sea and air.
Combined with world class naval patrol / picket ability (which also needs upgrading), that, IMO, would be a much better bang for buck, and a more useful one to the US and Australia than operating surplus 2nd/3rd generation strike aircraft.

Supurb, your arguments are meaningless jargon, excavated from lord only knows what orifice. Do you know waht "terrific logistics" is? should we have five or six C17's perhaps? as well as a billion dollar landing ship, better make that two, to ensure availibility when one is in refit.
On the one hand you want to be able to take on Fiji single handed whilst simultaneously describing a force structure that would be butchered like the Canadians at Deippe. To be able to take on Fiji by ourselves, as you suggest, we will need an army, navy and airforce the size of Australia's .

In all seriousness, you need to visit a library and study these matters, you could do worse than starting with Alfred Thayer Mahan book, The Influence of Seapower on History, Dreadnought by Robert K Massie, Wellington by Gordon Corrigan as well as The Old Contemptibles by Robin Neillands plus Razor's Edge by Hugh Bicheno on the Falklands war.
The reason I suggest these is that your strategic perspective is incredibly narrow and unrealistic.

 

[moahunter]

, Are you a complete imbecile? You want a force that can go it alone against Fiji? that would require a deployable brigade with the nessery amphibious transport, not that I would mind, but I question if you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. You cannot have what you want with one percent of GDP spent on defence, regardless of if we have a strike component in the airforce or not.
.

I have noticed in the past when people are losing an argument, they often resort to name calling. And, this is an argument you are losing, for NZ is not going to have a strike airforce, just like it is not going to have submarines or other fantasy's that some would like. As to the 1% of GDP, as I noted many times, NZ should increase its defense % to GDP, and re-join ANZUS ASAP. Then work within ANZUS to develop a small FCS type of force that could make mince meat of the Fiji military, in a given scenario where we already have troops on the ground there. Even if that requires a 3% or 4% GDP commitment, and some political compromises (like letting nuclear powered ships back into waters) - I think NZ should do it.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I have noticed in the past when people are losing an argument, they often resort to name calling.

No I am calling you an imbecile because you have demonstrated that that is what you are. You have proposed that NZ take on Fiji by itself with a battalion of only five hundred strong, and an army that has but two units of this size while failing to demonstrate the logistics requirements for said unit, let alone any idea of embarked rotary wing support or naval fire support. What makes it even worse, you want to be able to do this without even a cursory examination of what the nature of the Fijian resistance to your invasion might be.

And, this is an argument you are losing, for NZ is not going to have a strike airforce, just like it is not going to have submarines or other fantasy's that some would like.

Any argument over a NZ air strike arm is academic at this point, given that is de-facto gone, re-establishment is a better description. As to who wins said argument, well, you cannot demonstrate why we had one in the first place, and refuse to answer any questions directed your way to justfy anything you say about the armed forces, and you suggest I am loosing an argument?
And to top it off you think we can defeat the Fijian army with a 500 man battalion... your out of your league if you think you can claim some sort of default victory.

I will ask you again, with respect to the F16 buy and their worth, as mentioned above:

"What you are not realising, is what mission would they have been tasked with? Unless you can answer that, and I will leave you to work it out, how can you make any realistic judgement of their worth?"

If you cannot answer this direct question I will assume that you cannot by way of having no argument to sustain your claims.

As to the 1% of GDP, as I noted many times, NZ should increase its GDP, and re-join ANZUS ASAP.

But I bet you cannot explain why, can you? Indeed, I suspect its yet another dishonest golden mean fallacy, trying to curry favour for your point of view with out any reasoning or logic behind it.

You advocate for two five hundred man battalions for the army and want to invade Fiji with one of them, you write in jargon, parrot Labour defence policy as if it were your own, cannot back up anything you say with evidence, don't answer questions. You patently don't know what you are talking about, do you? or perhaps you are just trolling?

 

[moahunter]

"What you are not realising, is what mission would they have been tasked with? Unless you can answer that, and I will leave you to work it out, how can you make any realistic judgement of their worth?"

If you cannot answer this direct question I will assume that you cannot by way of having no argument to sustain your claims.

I can answer that, NZ does not have a strike arm at the moment, so it is not tasked with anything. Any strike ability is purely hypothetical, regardless of what existed in the past. As to developing one, it would only have value, and be interesting enough for the pilots to keep them around, if is capable of flying with the US and Australian forces to "fly the flag" in a given situation, be it against Indonesia, in Afghanistan, or whatever. That would entail enormous cost (constant systems and weapons upgrades, training participation, etc.), that IMO can be much better spent within the bounds of ANZUS in providing a first rate niche capability for our army (a bit like how the ANZAC frigates fit in nicely). Unless you are suggesting NZ buy strike aircraft to fly against Tonga or similar?:unknown If so, it seems to me quite clear, the true reason you want it is just to fly the flag at airshows. I'd far rather NZ made a useful difference in a real war zone though, and I am looking forward to watching the soon to be National government take steps to enable that to happen in a more meaningful way than at the moment.

 

[Lucasnz]

That would entail enormous cost (constant systems and weapons upgrades, training participation, etc.), that IMO can be much better spent within the bounds of ANZUS in providing a first rate niche capability for our army (a bit like how the ANZAC frigates fit in nicely). Unless you are suggesting NZ buy strike aircraft to fly against Tonga or similar?:unknown If so, it seems to me quite clear, the true reason you want it is just to fly the flag at airshows. I'd far rather NZ made a useful difference in a real war zone though, and I am looking forward to watching the soon to be National government take steps to enable that to happen in a more meaningful way than at the moment.

I suggest you read some of the reports into the air combat force. One of them found that the aircombat force did have a important role in the defence of New Zealand, by conducting maritime strike and its interesting to note that NZ pilots were some of the best, despite no training with the US for nearly 20 years until the were betrayed by Labour. I've been following the discussions for a number of days. You are wrong - You seem to ignore that the primarily role of a defence force is the long term secuirity of a nation - not next weeks fishing boat, stealing 1/2 a tonne of fish. New Zealand can afford aircombat aircraft, the only issue is the nutter on the 9th floor of the behive.

 

[moahunter]

not next weeks fishing boat, stealing 1/2 a tonne of fish.

How about a Harpoon on an Orion? Do you really need an F16 for that? As to security of the nation - the answer there is ANZUS, and contributing to it in a meaningful way.

For an F16 is not going to provide long term security, especially when the best and brightest pilots leave to fly better aircraft for better air-forces. An F35 / Superhornet or similar might, ideally stationed in Australia to enable integrated training with a force of more meaningful scale. If a combat strike force was the way to go, it should have been done properly, with up-to date, state of the art weapons systems, not an older generation that will need on-going up dates (to really acheive synergies, it would be acquired at the same time as the Australians upgrade). But where does it end? A submarine too?

 

[barra]

No....this will make you cry:

I know the Williamtown NL Officer and he is writing a report recommending the purchase of the A4s back........ hoping the US deal goes bad. Not enough assets to train the JTACs & CAS, SH (when they come) and the Fleet AAW training (despite the 6 RAN funded hawks) as well as A2A and normal MS training. So options are either more hawks or ideally the A4s (cause of the on board weather radars). Now that NZ has scrapped their ACF we don't get to use their (your) A4s to do the AAW ttraining like we did when we had the Perth Class Destroyers and the question is what will we do when we need them to train the AWDs?

Brett.

Hey Brett,

I get the impression that even if the RAAF fast jet fleet did nothing but fly fleet support the Navy would not be happy. The problem Navy and Army have is they do not control the fast jets so they can't have them whenever they want them. That said we have over 130 fast jets and do considerable fleet support for Navy, particularly during workup for deployments to the Gulf. I have personally been involved in launching jets at 0300 (o dark o'clock for you civvies) cause that is what Navy wanted, no 9 to 5 air force here!! Another point you may consider is that fast jet jocks get very little out of fleet support flying. Flying missile profiles against ships does nothing to enhance their skills. The Navy has a contract with a civilian company who provide lear jets to do this work which frees up the RAAF to an extent.
Navy funding the Hawks? Thats a new one, I think you will find the good old aussie taxpayer funded them 100%. You will find that 79SQN fly considerable fleet support in WA, so Navy are getting value for "their" 6 Hawks.
Reminds me of the old arguement which goes something like "they would be unhappy if you were shoving gold coins up their arse....."

Cheers,

Barra

Sorry for being off topic, end of vent

 

[t68]

No....this will make you cry:

I know the Williamtown NL Officer and he is writing a report recommending the purchase of the A4s back........ hoping the US deal goes bad. Not enough assets to train the JTACs & CAS, SH (when they come) and the Fleet AAW training (despite the 6 RAN funded hawks) as well as A2A and normal MS training. So options are either more hawks or ideally the A4s (cause of the on board weather radars). Now that NZ has scrapped their ACF we don't get to use their (your) A4s to do the AAW ttraining like we did when we had the Perth Class Destroyers and the question is what will we do when we need them to train the AWDs?

Brett.

QUOTE=barra;154895]Hey Brett,

I get the impression that even if the RAAF fast jet fleet did nothing but fly fleet support the Navy would not be happy. The problem Navy and Army have is they do not control the fast jets so they can't have them whenever they want them. That said we have over 130 fast jets and do considerable fleet support for Navy, particularly during workup for deployments to the Gulf. I have personally been involved in launching jets at 0300 (o dark o'clock for you civvies) cause that is what Navy wanted, no 9 to 5 air force here!! Another point you may consider is that fast jet jocks get very little out of fleet support flying. Flying missile profiles against ships does nothing to enhance their skills. The Navy has a contract with a civilian company who provide lear jets to do this work which frees up the RAAF to an extent.
Navy funding the Hawks? Thats a new one, I think you will find the good old aussie taxpayer funded them 100%. You will find that 79SQN fly considerable fleet support in WA, so Navy are getting value for "their" 6 Hawks.
Reminds me of the old arguement which goes something like "they would be unhappy if you were shoving gold coins up their arse....."

Cheers,

Barra

Sorry for being off topic, end of vent[/QUOTE]


Sorry for being off topic

I am only trowing this in the air if for some strange reason that RAN do pull it off and get the skyhawks for fleet training ,would it be all possible that could operate of an lhd ,might be a cheap way of getting some cas for the troops and a stepping stone to get back into carrier ops in a meaningful way

 

[Marc 1]

QUOTE=barra;154895]Hey Brett,

I get the impression that even if the RAAF fast jet fleet did nothing but fly fleet support the Navy would not be happy. The problem Navy and Army have is they do not control the fast jets so they can't have them whenever they want them. That said we have over 130 fast jets and do considerable fleet support for Navy, particularly during workup for deployments to the Gulf. I have personally been involved in launching jets at 0300 (o dark o'clock for you civvies) cause that is what Navy wanted, no 9 to 5 air force here!! Another point you may consider is that fast jet jocks get very little out of fleet support flying. Flying missile profiles against ships does nothing to enhance their skills. The Navy has a contract with a civilian company who provide lear jets to do this work which frees up the RAAF to an extent.
Navy funding the Hawks? Thats a new one, I think you will find the good old aussie taxpayer funded them 100%. You will find that 79SQN fly considerable fleet support in WA, so Navy are getting value for "their" 6 Hawks.
Reminds me of the old arguement which goes something like "they would be unhappy if you were shoving gold coins up their arse....."

Cheers,

Barra

Sorry for being off topic, end of vent

Sorry for being off topic

I am only trowing this in the air if for some strange reason that RAN do pull it off and get the skyhawks for fleet training ,would it be all possible that could operate of an lhd ,might be a cheap way of getting some cas for the troops and a stepping stone to get back into carrier ops in a meaningful way[/QUOTE]

HMAS Melbourne was aparently the smallest ship to operate 'modern' jet aircraft, yet its flightdeck was 31m longer than the LHD's deck. To operate jets the Melbourne's deck was reinforced (twice) to with stand the forces involved. To operate jet aircraft you really need an angled flight deck in case you have a 'bolter' (aircraft that misses the arrester wires) - this is not part of the LHD's design, and there is no provision for a catapault. To redesign the LHD for use as a mini carrier would be expensive and nearly pointless to operate a few obsolescent airframes. (Melbourne used to operate with a total of 18 airframes aparently (10 Sea Kings and 8 A4's) Sure the A4's would be a bargain to buy, but as they haven't been in the air for what 8 years? they would cost millions each to get back in the air and hundreds of millions of dollars to modify the LHD's. Quite apart from all of these reasons, we don't have naval personnel trained in carrier ops anymore, everything from servicing catapaults, to pilot training.

No thanks.

 

[t68]

Sorry for being off topic

I am only trowing this in the air if for some strange reason that RAN do pull it off and get the skyhawks for fleet training ,would it be all possible that could operate of an lhd ,might be a cheap way of getting some cas for the troops and a stepping stone to get back into carrier ops in a meaningful way

HMAS Melbourne was aparently the smallest ship to operate 'modern' jet aircraft, yet its flightdeck was 31m longer than the LHD's deck. To operate jets the Melbourne's deck was reinforced (twice) to with stand the forces involved. To operate jet aircraft you really need an angled flight deck in case you have a 'bolter' (aircraft that misses the arrester wires) - this is not part of the LHD's design, and there is no provision for a catapault. To redesign the LHD for use as a mini carrier would be expensive and nearly pointless to operate a few obsolescent airframes. (Melbourne used to operate with a total of 18 airframes aparently (10 Sea Kings and 8 A4's) Sure the A4's would be a bargain to buy, but as they haven't been in the air for what 8 years? they would cost millions each to get back in the air and hundreds of millions of dollars to modify the LHD's. Quite apart from all of these reasons, we don't have naval personnel trained in carrier ops anymore, everything from servicing catapaults, to pilot training.

No thanks.[/QUOTE]


I thought that might be the case but was not sure as the skyhawk is small and nimble,might be pushing the envelope.

 

[bowex]

With regard to the attitude that the New Zealand air combat capability is unneccessary (or necessary, but not important enough to spend anything on), ignoring the A-4 platform and just focusing on the capability itself:

Community policing is much more effective when the members of the community share information and co-operate with each other and the official policing body. Likewise, maintaining regional security is easier when the countries and political bodies which make up the regional community share the burden of the task.

And so, debate over the air combat capability has often centered on whether we are able to do our part for regional security,without maintaining strike fighters, or more specifically, do the other countries in South East Asia and the Pacific see us as pulling our weight.

The argument can be made that by reducing the breadth of our capabilities by ending our air combat force, we are able to increase the effectiveness of the remaining land and sea combat force components, so in effect our contribution to regional security remains the same or improves.

But it is my opinion that history has shown the value of air power and that it remains an essential element in the defence forces of any country that wants to be free and independent. I believe this opinion is shared by the countries of East and South East Asia, as evidenced by the modernisation regional air combat forces have undergone in just the last decade alone. Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, South Korea and China have all aquired modern platforms. Thailand, Australia and Japan will in the next few years also begin aquiring new platforms. In fact, all of our top five global export destinations, Australia, USA, Japan, China and the United Kingdom, intend to modernise their air power over the coming decade.

This may simply emphasise that big countries can afford such capabilities, and can fill the gap left by us, but the point I would make is that not only have we been able to afford such a capability in the past (in smaller numbers), but the simple act these nations and others are making of investing large amounts of money in air power should illustrate just how important they consider this capability, and what folly it must appeared to them when we eliminated our strike wing.

Given our decision not to maintain an ACF, even after operating one for so long, our neighbours can only form the opinion that when making our defence decisions, we are not taking their security into account (which, given their purchases, must have some requirement for air combat forces).

I do not believe our friends and trading partners have accepted our excuse that we cannot spend any money whatsoever on such an important capability. I think they have assumed we simply do not care, or have such a warped view of the world that we cannot see the utility of air power or the contribution it makes to regional security. As a result, our trading and defence relationships with our regional partners have not reached their full potential, and so the New Zealand economy will have surely missed out on something, whether it be less access to overseas markets, or less favorable trading terms then we could have otherwise negotiated.

I have no idea how much the "good will" of maintaining our air combat capability would have generated in economic returns, but surely it would have been something. Enough to cover the lease and operation of the F-16A's and B's, I cannot say. But then again, we don't expect our frigates to prevent the exploitation of our marine resources equivalent to the cost of operating the ships, do we? We don't usually expect our insurance policies to make us money, in fact defence may be unique in being an aspect of government that makes NZ more prosperous and more secure at the same time. Try and find another government department that can do that!

The public could do with a reminder that our forces are not only used for defending our territory and peacekeeping, but also for protecting our economic interests by participating in regional security exercises, which helps maintain the security of our trading partners and ensures the security and openness of the tradelanes that connect us to the rest of the world. If it were possible to stress this economic connection to the public, it would likely make discussion of defence issues such as the need for an air combat capability more relevant to the man on the street.

A balanced defence force with quality equipment and quality personnel is a national asset that is worth investing in. Given our isolated location surrounded by water, and our relative proximity to Asia, which is becoming more important for our exports, yet still has many unresolved conflicts, I think that an air combat capability is an essential part of such a "balanced" defence force, especially for making a low-manpower yet high-impact contribution to the maintenance of regional security.

 

[greenie]

Nice one.
When are you running for govt,

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I can answer that, NZ does not have a strike arm at the moment, so it is not tasked with anything.

Thats not what I asked, I was asking you about the value of the F16's.

Any strike ability is purely hypothetical, regardless of what existed in the past. As to developing one, it would only have value, and be interesting enough for the pilots to keep them around, if is capable of flying with the US and Australian forces to "fly the flag" in a given situation, be it against Indonesia, in Afghanistan, or whatever. That would entail enormous cost (constant systems and weapons upgrades, training participation, etc.),

:rolleyesThe purpose of an Air strike arm for NZ was always maritime strike and to enable the army and navy to train for their roles in war(a capability they are losing). The maritime strike capacity was, as it always has been, to ensure the protection of NZ's coastal, maritime approaches and the overall maritime region from enemy activity, mainly mine laying and commerce raiding.

that IMO can be much better spent within the bounds of ANZUS in providing a first rate niche capability for our army (a bit like how the ANZAC frigates fit in nicely). Unless you are suggesting NZ buy strike aircraft to fly against Tonga or similar?:unknown If so, it seems to me quite clear, the true reason you want it is just to fly the flag at airshows.

I would suggest you read those books I recommended to you, you need some perspective. I do not support strike aircraft for shits and giggles, but because of a healthy respect for a changing world (have a look at Kevin Rudd's comments here on their arms build up) and a realisation as our principle interests are beyond the South pacific any attempt by us to defend those interests makes us subject to attack. The most cost effective way to defend against any conventional attack, which must come by sea, is via aircraft.

I'd far rather NZ made a useful difference in a real war zone though,

And without an air-strike arm the force we do send will not be capable of doing the job as they wont be up to par training wise, and their lines of communication vulnerable.Because if we end up in a 'real war' that's what we need to think about and plan for because if its a 'real war' as you put it, no ones going to have the spare capacity to look after us.

and I am looking forward to watching the soon to be National government take steps to enable that to happen in a more meaningful way than at the moment.

I only hope they invite public comment on it.