The reason we would not get JSF (or even similar) is the exact same reason we do not have an ACF right now and I really do not see how (or why) we would go from nothing to top of the game from scratch just to keep up with the Smiths next door? As hypothetical as even getting back into the fast air genre (and again if and only if all the other priorities are already financed and sorted) is we would not need JSF as has been stated, leave them to the big boys with the big budgets, and we fill niche roles more suited to us and not US ie Afghan top cover, ISIS bombing runs, wayward airliners, dodgy shipping etc etc If we somehow boosted our budget then by all means top of the line gear for everyone but somehow...... again everythings not a Top Gun movie inspired scenario against every powerhouse country in the world. We could just relieve demand off our stretched allies in certain low-med intensity arenas but history (A4) shows more likely just provide detterant and options regionally and here in NZ.
The thing with F-16C/Ds is that they are a lot cheaper to aqquire, maintain, operate and support then the others with their state of the art tech, twin engines, unproven capabilities, infrastructure blah blah but are still very capable, most bang for our limited buck, and this is crucial for our small country with limited (after paying for everything else by then) resources to realistically do what we need to do with them and not what Aus, US or UK does with theirs as we are to a degree very different. We could invest in improved stand off weapons, defences and sensors to alleviate some of the perceived deficiancies. F16 is still being procured around the world so is still an enabler, just not top dog but still a useful platform nonetheless especially for us in our situation (or lack of).
They would also be ready a lot sooner ie similar in time to say 10 parked up SH2G(I)s?? whilst pilots, train the trainers and maintanence pers could deploy to any number of friendly users around the world (of which there are many) for initial training prior to arrival and a cadre of allies could then post in for continuation and refinement. Yes it won't be a quick process but will be a lot quicker than say with some other options and at the end of the day we do still have quality pilots and aircraft techs, same fundamentals new sub-trade, some on here talk as if we will be training cavemen in the art of space travel via an open heart surgery course using 7 different languages! We will need help but we are not helpless, it's not a nuclear submarine it's a jet aircraft so not a completely foreign concept to us.
Costs and savings are what eventually killed the original F-16s (which were also older A/Bs back then) so why would we repeat history when this is a type now being parked up by the squadron and seemingly spare and available, no one is as yet mothballing FA-18s, JSFs or the like therefore we would be paying a premium when all we are doing is stepping back onto the ladder and not taking on the top 5 in air to air combat or sneaking into their backyards for a cheeky surgical strike. It's not all dogfights and stealth runs, baby steps on a shoestring budget.
Thanks MrC, I wondered how US decided how and when to 'allocate' kit to various nations, obviously us having an ACW is not that vital in their big picture for them not to have already offered therefore not as needed as it would seem.
C-17s??? hmmm not sure on this arrangement, too many factors, C+C, operating budgets, majority task overkill etc. Whilst they would be a great asset they would almost definitely cut any idea of our own A400 at all or even any other transporter in any decent numbers for that matter, would they be worth it overall?