The possesion of air combat aircraft by the RNZAF has since the 1950's never been considered for the defence of New Zeraland in the context of direct invasion.
It is not about defending our shores from some sort of mythical peril. Some sort of Battle of New Zealand thing.
The acquistition brief of ACDRE Frank Gill when he went up to the US in 1969 to look at the candidate aircraft for 75 Squadron was for an aircraft capable of close air support and an interdiction role for our then SE Asian based Battalion. It was believed that the main strike aircraft we had in the 1960's the 12 Canberra tactical bombers were not suitable (The Vampires were trainers by this time - we had to lease Venoms for Malaya then the Canberra's arrived in 1959 I think). Thus we got the A-4 in 1970. It was just 10 single seaters and 4 of the T model. Fourteen was regarded as sufficent. The A-4 being such great little aircraft it was 'multi-role' even before such fancy words were used to describe the variety of things it could do. Later - post the Kahu upgrade and the increase of the ex RAN A-4's we got into the Anti-Ship business and shined in the role. It was a role we could offer the allies and friends in the region as something a little extra on offer - and they were world respected for it.
But the point is and will always be Air Combat capability in the context of the RNZAF is not about defending New Zealand from mythical peril. Invasions from bloodly aircraft carriers and such nonsense. Stripping back all the crap that gets thrown around on this subject - New Zealands needs were and are still modest in terms of an air combat capability.
Fourteen cheap modern aircraft that can do CAS, interdiction and anti-ship. That is all we are talking about. There are only two aircraft in this market segment if you could call it that - the M-346 or the F/A-50. Note modern and cheap - so obviously the Hawk does not cut it as they found out in the UAE. I have revealed my preference on a prior occassion in detail but will mention again that the F/A-50 is what the NZDF needs imo. The F/A is essentially the T/A version with an upgraded radar and Link 16 capability.
One thing to note is that the last time NZ deployed elements of the ACF and an infantry Battalion together was in Borneo in the mid 1960's when the RNZAF deployed six Canberra's. It was felt that the deployment of a flight of 6 aircraft was suitable to support combat operations by a NZ Battalion. The Quigley review thought the original F-16 deal was too many aircraft I think they recommemended 14-16 airframes was sufficent.
The reason why we don't have an air combat force is because one very powerful politician who thought she knew better had wanted it gone - Recce is right on that. She had waited 29 years to commit her coup de grace - take her symbolic venegance. For National it was a political trainwreck. National should have realised it was going out of office in 99 sped up delivery of the first tranche of F-16B's into New Zealand and given Helen Clark the biggest political dead rat she had to swallow. If they had managed to deliver six to eight F-16's on the Ohakea flightline by the November 1999 election then she would have had no political room for manouver with the Clinton Administration and US State department. She was able to reject the F-16's because they had not started deliveries to the RNZAF. If they had started to deliver them she could not have backed out and returned them to AMARC- she would not have dared risked it.
Affordability is something that gets thrown around. Is a modest yet modern second tier CAS/INT/A-Shp capability affordable? One of the price targets of the F/A-50 (and I am going on what an informed Korean has told me after I told him to do some digging in the Korea language) is an under 30 Billion Won flyaway unit price or around NZ$35.7m - about a third more than the baseline T-50 AJT. Another thing we know from the Quigley review is that 22 F-16's and 17 MB-339's were going to cost us NZ$150 million per annum to operate and another $60m in lease costs and upgrade payments. This was pretty much the same as the 19 A-4's and 17 Macchis budgeted for in their last year, of which the A-4's cost $90m. Also 14 Sqd's 17 Macchi's was 40% of the ACF operational cost at $60 million per annum, including a wage bill for 63 groundies & 21 pilots, 4500 flight hours and fixed Sqd costs $6.7m. Whatever way you slice and dice it 14 new F/A-50's would be somewhat less to operate than $150m p.a. Maybe $75m all up would be feasible in the context of post 2010. If my trusty calculator is working properly 35.7 x 14 is 499.8. So is $499.8m affordable? Is $75m p.a affordable?
Frankly we dont need F-16 Block 60's at double/triple the cost or that level of capability.
And that $499.8m payment would be spread out over a number of years. Im pretty sure between, Treasury, the Reserve Bank and John Key's moneyworld contacts a 10 year finance spread could be sorted out. So could we afford $50 million a year to pay for these things? It is less than what we spend on 1 day of welfare ($53m).
Can we afford the $75m operating costs on top of this? Thus $125m p.a in total? Of course - that is millions less than the nonsense called the capital charge the NZDF has to pay back each year! Two and a half days of welfare or let me put it another way about a 6.6% increase in current gross defence spending or even better still - $100 a year or $2 a week or 30cents a day in extra taxes for every working adult taxpayer between 18-65. How about less than 8 cents a day for every man woman and child? Can NZer's afford 14 F/A-50 aircraft at 8c a day? Its a no brainer!
