You think the world is more dangerous now? How so? Wars? Terrorists? Military build ups? Countries disagreeing with each others policies? See if you can guess when/where in the world I am referring to...
So what's different exactly for NZ?
You seem to think we need a specific jet response to defend NZ from what I can only assume is a specific threat but you are yet to explain from what, who, how or even why? I don't need to provide logical reasons why we don't need fighter jets, we don't have fighter jets. You seem to be missing the point, you need to provide logical reasons why we do and hate to say it but by just saying the world is "more" dangerous doesn't quite cut it unless of course we are going to buy these for the world?
Lets get this straight, I'm not arguing why we shouldn't have jets, that's already done and dusted, a long time ago and counting. The fact nothing has happened is literally only compounding the matter. It's you who are advocating for their return therefore it's you who needs to provide the literal reasons why specifically, not theoretically, but specifically (I've only been asking for clear cut actual reasons since, forever!), and tea leaf reading is not a valid argument for such a specific one dimensional capability response. Hopefully I'll get a better answer(s) next decade?
I cannot speak for others, but responses like this come off as both emotive and illogical, at least to me. This is compounded by what is either an ignorance of the larger world beyond 'just' NZ, or an awareness coupled with a decision to ignore what is or has happened elsewhere.
At present the NZDF seems to be both under resourced and over tasked, and from my POV these are neither recent developments or accidents, but rather the result of deliberate choices made by successive gov'ts for several decades at this point. Now I am nowhere nearly as well versed as some on NZ's political and economic history, but is seems that the current rather sad state of the NZDF seems to have been mostly the result of ideologically-driven choices, albeit with some economics reasons (Asian financial crisis of 1997, etc.) as well. It has also been my observation that when decisions are made for ideological reasons, very often that reasoning is either not logical, or conflates facts or circumstances to support the chosen outcome. This is not just an NZ phenomenon BTW but rather something I have noticed for years occurring all over the place. People or decision makers want
XYZ to happen or be done, and then work backwards from that to support the necessary decisions.
Now restoring the ACF is honestly not something I would put at the top of a list of what the NZDF needs, which is not the same as there not being any valid arguments for the RNZAF having an ACF or at some point reconstituting the ACF. However, the old arguments that the ACF (at least when kitted with the A-4 Skyhawks) was never used in anger, or the subsequent arguments that nothing has required a fast jet response since, and therefore there continues to be no need or relevance for an ACF in the NZDF is factually inaccurate. One must remember that Australia has deployed F/A-18 fighters to NZ, so that NZ Army personnel could train and exercise with close air support ahead of deployments to Afghanistan, and this needed to happen for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, the NZ Army personnel who would be getting deployed needed the practice, so that they would be able to safely and effectively make use of the close air support which was available over Afghanistan during their deployment. Without the exercise taking place, the NZ deployment would have been at greater risk because they would have been less able to make use of the resources available in theatre. The NZ deployment would therefore have been both more vulnerable to attack by the Taliban and other hostiles, as well as more likely to cause fratricides or blue-on-blue strikes. Another possible outcome if the exercises had not taken place would have been for NZ to get told, "thanks, but no thanks," as other nations declined offers of Kiwi units due to their limited experience with modern combined arms warfare.
Secondly, the RAAF deployment had to happen because NZ had no ability to engage in such training on its own because the NZDF no longer has either the personnel or kit to provide such training opportunities. Given the increased importance of being able to conduct combined arms operations, a defence force which not only lacks one of the combat arms elements, but also the ability to train with or against that type of combat element is going to be distinctly limited in capabilities. Now there are certainly a number of other arguments for an ACF aside from 'just' the training argument, but it does seem as though many do dismiss this one routinely.
I also wish to go further with some of the thinking (or at least what seems to be the thinking) behind why the NZDF has lost some capabilities and/or has yet to acquire replacements for other existing capabilities. This seems to be an area where the fallacy, "it has not been used, so NZ does not need it," makes recurring appearances.
Aside from the ACF, another example of this would be the state of the NZ Army's air defence capabilities specifically, and the NZDF air defence capabilities generally. As it stands currently, the RNZN has limited air defence capabilities aboard the two upgraded
ANZAC-class frigates, whilst everything else in the NZDF inventory has trashfire or otherwise rely upon other units for air defence.
Now consider taking that fallacious argument even further. Now suppose that the NZDF has not had to engage with an adversary who has an armoured vehicle or perhaps hardened bunker in the last ten or twenty years. If this situation was the case, then some might argue that the NZDF has no need for ATGW's like Javelin. At this point, how relevant would Kiwi forces be in a threat environment? At some point, Kiwi forces will find themselves no longer relevant or capable if situations like this continue. If the NZDF becomes irrelevant (to outside actors) then NZ will have even less ability to act in it's strategic interests and would be at the whim of others.
Lastly (for now, getting tired) an ACF is quite literally not;
a specific one dimensional capability response.
since it provides three dimensional capabilities coupled with the potential to response with speed and over great distances. The ability to do so could be important for NZ in the future, since that could enable NZ to respond to threats to NZ's interests faster/earlier and/or whilst they are much more distant from NZ.
Speaking more broadly than NZ having an ACF again, there would be value in NZ having the ability to deploy and operate the NZDF away from NZ proper. Whether it were operating in a threat/threatened area like the eastern Med, Red Sea/Gulf of Aden/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean, the Malacca Strait, SCS, or having the NZDF take over operations for another nation in an area so that they can redeploy to a threat area, these are all ways that NZ can have influence over NZ's strategic interests. However, keeping the NZDF small/shrinking, whilst either not replacing dated kit/capabilities or just retiring them without replacement will leave the NZDF ill-equipped and ill-training if and when NZ does find it's interests threatened.
