Harriers from the UK for NZ Airforce/Army ?

[2RHPZ]

Read this recently:


Has anyone heard of a rumour or could possibly put to rest a rumour.
That the NZ Defence Force is looking at leasing Harriers from the UK, as a ground support unit, to support there "All Arms" concept of battle planning.

I bumped into a Ex-RNZAF MP, who mentioned that the Defence force was looking at a Air capability to support ground forces.

Two proposals at the time, were, leasing UK harriers or jumping on to the band wagon with the Australian Defence Force and purchasing a number of Tiger Attack helicopters.

The Reason behind Harriers, was since the Defence force was selling up its Airbases, Harriers required minimal sized bases to operate out of. The were Air Transportable and at a pinch, could be used on Naval or leased "Converted ships" to support Naval and Army units.

Another reason, was that Harriers could be transported to pretty much anywhere in the pacific, and required minimal set up on a island, to support other combat units.

If this is so, this is a right step for the NZ defence force. Without a Combat Air Wing, the NZ Defence forces will have to rely on integration with Aust/British/US forces, and would not be a credible unit in the field, with out such asset

Any info?

[Flagg]

I haven't heard that rumour.....and if it were true it would be a bolt from the blue.

The current Labour government is the one that sacked our Air Force and welched on a sweetheart F16 deal costing us millions to get out of it.

I DOUBT they would flip-flop so quickly.

I believe the current priority for the RNZAF at the moment is replacing our UH1 Iriquois fleet with a more modern/capable platform.

When the opposition party gains power in the next election(likely at the moment) we will likely see a change of course....but not likely to happen soon.

I'd bet my lunch money on a ZERO percent chance of the story being true.

I'll pass on the rumour to an Air Force mate though ;)

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Has anyone heard of a rumour or could possibly put to rest a rumour.
That the NZ Defence Force is looking at leasing Harriers from the UK, as a ground support unit, to support there "All Arms" concept of battle planning.

I bumped into a Ex-RNZAF MP, who mentioned that the Defence force was looking at a Air capability to support ground forces.

Two proposals at the time, were, leasing UK harriers or jumping on to the band wagon with the Australian Defence Force and purchasing a number of Tiger Attack helicopters.

The Reason behind Harriers, was since the Defence force was selling up its Airbases, Harriers required minimal sized bases to operate out of. The were Air Transportable and at a pinch, could be used on Naval or leased "Converted ships" to support Naval and Army units.

Another reason, was that Harriers could be transported to pretty much anywhere in the pacific, and required minimal set up on a island, to support other combat units.

If this is so, this is a right step for the NZ defence force. Without a Combat Air Wing, the NZ Defence forces will have to rely on integration with Aust/British/US forces, and would not be a credible unit in the field, with out such asset

rofl Aw crap, it took me ten minutes to stop laughing.

What would an ex-airfarce bacon boy know about procurement?, two tenths of f.u.c.k. all.


If this is so, this is a right step for the NZ defence force. Without a Combat Air Wing, the NZ Defence forces will have to rely on integration with Aust/British/US forces, and would not be a credible unit in the field, with out such asset

Thats funny, 'cause I do believe the Pro integration militia and the TNI in East Timor and the Taleban in Afghanistan see us as 'credible'.

I do hope you didn't write that CAG 147......

[GazB]

Without a Combat Air Wing, the NZ Defence forces will have to rely on integration with Aust/British/US forces, and would not be a credible unit in the field, with out such asset

Funny, our armed forces have been used in many conflicts as part of peace keeping forces and as peace making forces and I have never ever heard anyone we fought with or against say we were "not a credible unit".

After finally getting rid of those rediculous Skyhawks I am glad we didn't waste funds on handmedown F-16s that have been offered to Pakistan and Indonesia before us. It is roughly 2,500km to Australia and more than double that to any potential war zone... what would the F-16s be able to do that Aussie F-18s can't?

Our Skyhawks were used for three things... airshows, pretending to be cruise missiles for the Australian Navy boats for exercises and pretending to be cruise missiles for the New Zealand Navy for exercises.

There is no world shortage of Skyhawks or F-16s for use in UN operations. Considering their costs, their benefits were not great enough.

Any power that could threaten us down here with any credible force wouldn't think twice about a dozen Skyhawks or some early block F-16s armed with Sidewinders. Equally when we contribute forces to UN operations the last thing they need is a dozen Skyhawks or F-16s... more often infantry or engineers are much more valuable. Dropping the SKyhawks and turning down the F-16s saved enough money to actually spend some money on what we really need... ie more money spent on Orion updates, some new helos, fix or replace the hercs, and replace the M113s with LAVs.

[Michael RVR]

Wasn't it a NZ'er that had a ud from a 40mm inside a blackhawk?

That said though, everything else i've heard about NZ troops has been good.

I thought the skyhawks had maverick's as well ? In the regional scheme of things, probably more efficient to use than harpoons on local shipping.

[Flagg]

Funny, our armed forces have been used in many conflicts as part of peace keeping forces and as peace making forces and I have never ever heard anyone we fought with or against say we were "not a credible unit".

After finally getting rid of those rediculous Skyhawks I am glad we didn't waste funds on handmedown F-16s that have been offered to Pakistan and Indonesia before us. It is roughly 2,500km to Australia and more than double that to any potential war zone... what would the F-16s be able to do that Aussie F-18s can't?

Our Skyhawks were used for three things... airshows, pretending to be cruise missiles for the Australian Navy boats for exercises and pretending to be cruise missiles for the New Zealand Navy for exercises.

There is no world shortage of Skyhawks or F-16s for use in UN operations. Considering their costs, their benefits were not great enough.

Any power that could threaten us down here with any credible force wouldn't think twice about a dozen Skyhawks or some early block F-16s armed with Sidewinders. Equally when we contribute forces to UN operations the last thing they need is a dozen Skyhawks or F-16s... more often infantry or engineers are much more valuable. Dropping the SKyhawks and turning down the F-16s saved enough money to actually spend some money on what we really need... ie more money spent on Orion updates, some new helos, fix or replace the hercs, and replace the M113s with LAVs.

The F16 deal was a sweetheart deal if there ever was one.

They were NEW units.....the only time on the airframes and engines was only due to pre-delivery and maintenance requirements.

The F16 is widely regarded as the most capable compromise of flexibility/capability/cost.....4000+ owners can't all be wrong

They were the most advanced A/B model Falcons built, nearly to the C/D standard.....improved communications, HUD, Radar, IFF, and capable of firing advanced Air-to-Surface, Anti-Ship, and BVR munitions such as Maverick, Penguin, and AMRAAM....as well as being able to carry a larger external payload over standard A/B models.

The package lease cost was supposedly only $200 million over 10 years for 28 units .......the purchase at end of lease would have been minimal in future dollars.

Due to the size of the global fleet of F16s upgrades would be easily available and relatively affordable.

Due to the quantity of the fleet offered, there would be sufficient quantities to cover attrition and a reasonably high ops tempo for 30 years.

What they offer that the Australian Hornets do not is in terms of useful life(the Hornets airframes are getting old), interoperability, survivability(over A4), ability to cover entire tac air spectrum as at least a basic level, and simply not having to rely on the cousins for defense needs.

The idea of a northern hemisphere country failing to respect our EEZ isn't that far fetched, our ability to cope with such a problem is limited as our military credibility would be quite low in any such scenario.

And assuming historical allies to come to our rescue is exactly that, an assumption.

In my opinion, the only thing lacking in the deal is a second engine for the F16 for overwater operations...but it never posed a problem for the A4.

Hell.....take the $650+ million spent on the LAVIII, deduct the $200 million for the F16 package, leaves $450+ million.

You could buy a heap of Russian BMP/BTR units and still have heaps left over with that kind of dosh....hell, you could even buy a couple of your Backfires and tankers with the leftover change to dominate the entire Southern Hemisphere rofl

New Zealand lacks the ability to quickly project ANY combat power to protect it's EEZ....that security void was worth $200 million

[Flagg]

Wasn't it a NZ'er that had a ud from a 40mm inside a blackhawk?

That said though, everything else i've heard about NZ troops has been good.

I thought the skyhawks had maverick's as well ? In the regional scheme of things, probably more efficient to use than harpoons on local shipping.

I was told it was one of the boys from The Group that had the M203 UD outbound for a patrol on a UH1 helo, not a Blackhawk..but if a helo wound up with a nearly 2 inch hole in it, better one of your than one of ours ;)

The only thing I can confirm is that it has become a useful tool for training recruits on the M203 and avoiding UDs in general.

I wonder if it was soldier to pay? or just an endless supply of stubbies?

Maybe Ngati can shed some light.....

[oldsoak]

What do the kiwis actually use for EEZ protection ? Orions are a bit pricey for that sort of work are they not ? The ability to hear a sailor break wind in a sub a hundred metres down seems a bit like overkill to nick some fishingboat thats "lost its way" .

[2RHPZ]

I do hope you didn't write that CAG 147......

No, I didn´t. I wrote only
Read this recently: p-)

But for a big success I post another progress in this discussion: :lol:




USER 1: Thats an enormous outlay for a partial force though.

IMHO 5-10 Harriers/Sea Harriers would cost an arm and a leg and provide debatable capability. The integration, logistics issues would be significant. The RNZN would either need to lease a mercahnt conversion to train with, or see if they could train with our future "pretend" carriers.

The money would be better off spent elsewhere.


USER 2: Utter bollox! Harriers of any kind for NZ are a sheer dream (or nightmare, if you are trying to support them for such small numbers) for the NZ forces........even TIGER's are peripheral.

For a start there is no programme to provide such a capability, go check the NZ Defence Department website and see...............

Secondly, it will require a change of Elected Government, and I still don't see the National Party defeating Helen Clarke's Labour grouping.................the new, so-called, Maori Party is a joke.


USER 3: Harriers would be choice bro rofl

[oldsoak]

Wasn't it a NZ'er that had a ud from a 40mm inside a blackhawk?

That said though, everything else i've heard about NZ troops has been good.

I thought the skyhawks had maverick's as well ? In the regional scheme of things, probably more efficient to use than harpoons on local shipping.

I was told it was one of the boys from The Group that had the M203 UD outbound for a patrol on a UH1 helo, not a Blackhawk..but if a helo wound up with a nearly 2 inch hole in it, better one of your than one of ours ;)

The only thing I can confirm is that it has become a useful tool for training recruits on the M203 and avoiding UDs in general.

I wonder if it was soldier to pay? or just an endless supply of stubbies?

Maybe Ngati can shed some light.....

- but you cant get stubbies in Ardmore... ( or wherever on it is now ) :)

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Michael RVR wrote,

Wasn't it a NZ'er that had a ud from a 40mm inside a blackhawk?


Yep, during batt1. But how about the Squadron Commander who UD'ed with his Sig and shot a jerry can the Bn RSM was sitting on........

That said what about the 5/7 guy who tried to kill the rest of his section because they were, ahem, 'playing' with him. ;)

The chicken stranglers troop commander took the heat for him. Helos look better without doors anyway... :cantbeli:

[Flagg]

What do the kiwis actually use for EEZ protection ? Orions are a bit pricey for that sort of work are they not ? The ability to hear a sailor break wind in a sub a hundred metres down seems a bit like overkill to nick some fishingboat thats "lost its way" .

Unarmed Orions is pretty much all we've got for that :|

[GazB]

The F16 deal was a sweetheart deal if there ever was one.

The F-16 deal was trying to sell a man with no legs a really nice pair of shoes.... hey they are Italian and very comfortable... honest!!!


They were NEW units.....the only time on the airframes and engines was only due to pre-delivery and maintenance requirements.

They were new 10 years ago when they were offered to the Pakistanis, and then to the Indonesians... the reason they were so cheap is because Pakistan actually paid for them but after they tested a nuclear device the US Congress stopped delivery.


The F16 is widely regarded as the most capable compromise of flexibility/capability/cost.....4000+ owners can't all be wrong

Actually it is a very good aircraft, but why is that in any way relevant? An F-16 is about as much use to New Zealand as a Los Angeles Class SSN would be use to Zimbabwe.


They were the most advanced A/B model Falcons built, nearly to the C/D standard.....improved communications, HUD, Radar, IFF, and capable of firing advanced Air-to-Surface, Anti-Ship, and BVR munitions such as Maverick, Penguin, and AMRAAM....as well as being able to carry a larger external payload over standard A/B models.


And the last UN intervention where they were so short of fighters they pleaded with NZ to take Skyhawks let alone F-16s was?


The package lease cost was supposedly only $200 million over 10 years for 28 units .......the purchase at end of lease would have been minimal in future dollars.


And of course the cost of training the pilots, rennovating the airbases to use F-16s, retraining the maintainence personel, maintainence on the aircraft and new engines would all be free.


Due to the size of the global fleet of F16s upgrades would be easily available and relatively affordable.

But you already said:


They were the most advanced A/B model Falcons built, nearly to the C/D standard.....improved communications, HUD, Radar, IFF, and capable of firing advanced Air-to-Surface, Anti-Ship, and BVR munitions such as Maverick, Penguin, and AMRAAM....as well as being able to carry a larger external payload over standard A/B models.

What else do we need capability wise?


The package lease cost was supposedly only $200 million over 10 years for 28 units .......the purchase at end of lease would have been minimal in future dollars.


Except that the money for the lease, the lifetime costs, the modification of existing facilities have to actually come from somewhere... and most likely it will come from the defence budget... depriving the Navy and Army... which we actually do use to an Airforce capability we almost certainly wont use. I'd love to see F-16s flying at the Wanaka Airshow, but I am not prepared to give up our Army or Navy to have it.


ability to cover entire tac air spectrum as at least a basic level, and simply not having to rely on the cousins for defense needs.

Unless a country spends 350 billion a year for the next 20 years getting an armed force as powerful as the US's any security threat to NZ is either come through Australia or it isn't coming. Or are we to be attacked via Antarctica, or perhaps the Chathams Islands?


The idea of a northern hemisphere country failing to respect our EEZ isn't that far fetched, our ability to cope with such a problem is limited as our military credibility would be quite low in any such scenario.

Any country failing to respect our EEZ is not going to care much about a few F-16s buzzing around. We can sink fishing boats with Anzac frigates far more effectively than with F-16s... we can even board fishing boats and confiscate them and sell them if the owner is found guilty of illegal fishing, rather than adding to the oil pollution of the region by sinking it with a Maverick or Penguin.


Hell.....take the $650+ million spent on the LAVIII, deduct the $200 million for the F16 package, leaves $450+ million.

And the $450 million remaining might almost cover the cost of upgrading airbases to take F-16s, upgrading maintainence shops, and of course attracting back some fighter pilots, not to mention the new jet trainers you'd need etc etc, not to mention maintainence and a few of those very expensive weapons those F-16s carry... AMRAAMs are probably about $2 million NZ dollars each.


buy a couple of your Backfires and tankers with the leftover change to dominate the entire Southern Hemisphere

Yes, we'll have those Nuians scared... BTW I didn't realise I owned some Backfires?

If you think I am being biased I would be just as opposed to buying some Mig-29SMTs for all the same reasons.


New Zealand lacks the ability to quickly project ANY combat power to protect it's EEZ....that security void was worth $200 million

Upgraded Orions are 1,000 times more useful than any F-16 or Skyhawk.


I thought the skyhawks had maverick's as well ? In the regional scheme of things, probably more efficient to use than harpoons on local shipping.

Ummm... yeah Mike... it is called fisheries POLICING for a reason. Having a Skyhawk whizz past a ship violating our EEZ a couple of times and then firing weapons large enough to blow most fishing vessels sky high just doesn't happen. The reality of policing fisheries is that the fishing boat is usually spotted by Orion or other asset and a boat is sent to board it and inspect it... you know innocent till proven guilty. If you can find on board evidence that illegal fishing has taken place then you arrest the crew and confiscate the boat... not summarily execute everyone on board with a missile.


Orions are a bit pricey for that sort of work are they not ? The ability to hear a sailor break wind in a sub a hundred metres down seems a bit like overkill to nick some fishingboat thats "lost its way" .

Orions have very expensive electronics on board them, but operating costs are not that bad. They aren't called MPAs for nothing you know. (Maritime Patrol Aircraft).


Unarmed Orions is pretty much all we've got for that

And what sort of weapons would they require? It is not as if a fishing boat that might make 12 knots with a tail wind could "get away".

[Michael RVR]

Certainly an interesting point about fisheries protection. It leaves out the concept of being able to *help* the australians that are so valiantly shielding you ;)

I do get that you dont have money for everything you'd like, and the need to prioritise. I get that. I doubt the costs would be as high as you're making out though, and i'm positive that Australia would help doing basic / Lead-in fighter training if properly motivated :)


a few of those very expensive weapons those F-16s carry... AMRAAMs are probably about $2 million NZ dollars each.
:lol:

:)

[Flagg]

The F-16 deal was trying to sell a man with no legs a really nice pair of shoes.... hey they are Italian and very comfortable... honest!!!

No..it was the most affordable/flexible/capable/updateable deal available to provide NZ with a credible Air Combat Capability for the foreseeable future


They were new 10 years ago when they were offered to the Pakistanis, and then to the Indonesians... the reason they were so cheap is because Pakistan actually paid for them but after they tested a nuclear device the US Congress stopped delivery.

Do you buy your cars new here in NZ?

I didn't think so......as a New Zealander I think you'd understand the value in buying "NZ New" like a low-K Toyota from Japan rofl


Actually it is a very good aircraft, but why is that in any way relevant? An F-16 is about as much use to New Zealand as a Los Angeles Class SSN would be use to Zimbabwe.

So losing the ability to retain a national ability to provide tactical air cover, air support, and reconnaissance for the NZ Army, the Navy, and the nation ISN'T useful?


And the last UN intervention where they were so short of fighters they pleaded with NZ to take Skyhawks let alone F-16s was?

It's not just about the UN, it's also about being able to contribute in a multi-dimensional way....as well as maintaining interoperability with our traditional allies.

Also, considering the fact defense cooperation between our traditional allies has seen NZ falling by the wayside in a number of respects, where do we get off assuming someone else will look after us when we're not being good "teammates" from THEIR prospective?


And of course the cost of training the pilots, rennovating the airbases to use F-16s, retraining the maintainence personel, maintainence on the aircraft and new engines would all be free.

"Base renovations" would be minimal unless you can prove otherwise.

The NZ A4 upgrade would have made the transition easier on both flight crew and ground crew.

Flying NEW aircraft instead of 30+ year old airframes could have resulted in some associated costs being LOWER as labour hours per flight hour would have improved.


Quote:
Due to the size of the global fleet of F16s upgrades would be easily available and relatively affordable.


But you already said:

Quote:
They were the most advanced A/B model Falcons built, nearly to the C/D standard.....improved communications, HUD, Radar, IFF, and capable of firing advanced Air-to-Surface, Anti-Ship, and BVR munitions such as Maverick, Penguin, and AMRAAM....as well as being able to carry a larger external payload over standard A/B models.

I was referring to FUTURE upgradability....so that those airframes would maintain effectiveness in 10,20,30 years time



What else do we need capability wise?

To defend ourselves, as opposed to the reliance on others to look after us


Except that the money for the lease, the lifetime costs, the modification of existing facilities have to actually come from somewhere... and most likely it will come from the defence budget... depriving the Navy and Army... which we actually do use to an Airforce capability we almost certainly wont use. I'd love to see F-16s flying at the Wanaka Airshow, but I am not prepared to give up our Army or Navy to have it.

We didn't need to sacrifice anything.......Government is quick to offer national defense assets to pull our weight around the world, but is too stingy to pay for reasonable defense needs.


Unless a country spends 350 billion a year for the next 20 years getting an armed force as powerful as the US's any security threat to NZ is either come through Australia or it isn't coming. Or are we to be attacked via Antarctica, or perhaps the Chathams Islands?

Good point the Chathams...as they are a big reason why we have one of the largest marine EEZ's in the world and one of the smallest budgets to protect it.

I guess having one frigate laid up and due for retirement any day(Canterbury), one deployed thousands of nautical miles away for peace enforcement/keeping, leaving just one modern frigate to protect our entire EEZ from ANY threat is appropriate?

That's like having one fat cop on foot to protect a city.


Any country failing to respect our EEZ is not going to care much about a few F-16s buzzing around. We can sink fishing boats with Anzac frigates far more effectively than with F-16s... we can even board fishing boats and confiscate them and sell them if the owner is found guilty of illegal fishing, rather than adding to the oil pollution of the region by sinking it with a Maverick or Penguin.

Hard to patrol an area of 4.6 MILLION K's with a SINGLE ocean going platform


And the $450 million remaining might almost cover the cost of upgrading airbases to take F-16s, upgrading maintainence shops, and of course attracting back some fighter pilots, not to mention the new jet trainers you'd need etc etc, not to mention maintainence and a few of those very expensive weapons those F-16s carry... AMRAAMs are probably about $2 million NZ dollars each.

The bases themselves would have needed very little, unless you can prove otherwise

The fighter pilots were already here until they were sacked...they certainly got up to speed in Jaguars, Tornados, and F18s fast enough :roll:

There are cheaper options than maintaining the ENTIRE flight training curiculum.

Maintaining NEW airframes as opposed to 30+ year old ones can be cheaper in a number of respects.

There wouldn't be a need to maintain a LARGE stock of PGMs


Upgraded Orions are 1,000 times more useful than any F-16 or Skyhawk.

I agree, the P3 is a great platform for our needs.....it would be great if we could pick up some more late model used airframes....unfortunately we don't have enough aircrews(budget) for the ones we have now.

Unfortunately, all they can do is patrol and surveil...they have no onboard weapons...that was axed too remember?


Quote:
Unarmed Orions is pretty much all we've got for that

And what sort of weapons would they require? It is not as if a fishing boat that might make 12 knots with a tail wind could "get away".

With a single frigate(if we're lucky) patrolling a 4.8 million K EEZ it likely could get away.

In closing......the NZ government took a "do as I say, not as I do" approach to the issue......they spent how much to buy Air New Zealand out of fear of future actions from allied nations' air carriers, yet we are to rely on these same nations for our national protection and that of our defense forces?

Our EEZ is one of the most valuable reneweable resources in the world and we lack the ability to aggressively protect it at the moment.

The introduction of some new navy offshore hulls will help, but in an area of such enormous size it still provides an extremely limited ability to protect and enforce as well as completely lacks the ability to respond immediately.

[GazB]

It leaves out the concept of being able to *help* the australians that are so valiantly shielding you

Valiantly shielding us from what? Any help we ever need to give the Aussies is NOT going to revolve around a dozen fighter jets. They already have plenty. Sure there will be a gap of probably five years where their F-18s are getting very old and their new aircraft (probably F-35s) are still not ready but expecting first of all any actual threat to actually appear during that time is almost as rediculous as the notion that a dozen F-16 would make any difference what so ever.


I get that. I doubt the costs would be as high as you're making out though, and i'm positive that Australia would help doing basic / Lead-in fighter training if properly motivated

They got 10 times that help when all of our pilots either went to sign up with them or to the RAF for a job. We actually use our Navy and our Army. The money we are not longer wasting on very expensive airshow toys is actually going toward properly equipping them. They will be much more valuable to both us and in the incredibly unlikely event and invaded Australia.

Just look at the last times we used our forces... Afghanistan... huge shortage of fighters there, Iraq... again... not a fighter to be seen, East Timor... fighter jets for what?, Solomon Islands... again Fighters for what... then we look back to Bosnia, Kosovo, etc etc... Fighters can't demine, and they can't protect civies on the ground. In fact without decent troops on the ground fighters do FA.


No..it was the most affordable/flexible/capable/updateable deal available to provide NZ with a credible Air Combat Capability for the foreseeable future

An aircraft carrier is an asset that would be very useful, but they are expensive to own and operate. Having a SSN would be very useful... what country COULD invade us if we could take out their fleet and carriers before they even got here... but SSNs are very expensive too.
Australias Collins class SSKs will have rather more effect on any attempted invasion of Australia or New Zealand than any fighter or bomber. We can't afford to own and operate an SSK either.
Why Piss away cash on a couple of dozen airshow toys when they will be of no use and draining money from things we do actually use?


So losing the ability to retain a national ability to provide tactical air cover, air support, and reconnaissance for the NZ Army, the Navy, and the nation ISN'T useful?

Yes, because wherever we go in war we will be alone and operate completely alone.
The reality is that only the US has the money to pay for all the assets and equipment to do everything.
A little country like New Zealand shouldn't just dissolve its navy, army and airforce and rely on others to carry us, but we also shouldn't squander money on things we don't or can't use in the real world. Spending money on things we need and use means if we ever need to help others, like Britain, like Australia, like the US, that the help we give isn't a few understrength light armour units that are this month short of ammo because the Airforce just had an exercise and overspent their budget on unguided rockets or dummy bombs or whatever.


It's not just about the UN, it's also about being able to contribute in a multi-dimensional way....as well as maintaining interoperability with our traditional allies.

You mean our traditional allies like Australia... they don't use F-16s and never have.
Nor do the UK have F-16s... and in ten years time the US will start replacing them with something rather completely different... and unless we change our anti nuke policy I can't see them being friendly with us anyway. (And even if they were friendly with us... wasn't Vietnam enough? They'll tell you it was there war alone... Australia and New Zealand don't even get a mention.)


seen NZ falling by the wayside in a number of respects, where do we get off assuming someone else will look after us when we're not being good "teammates" from THEIR prospective?

Blowing the budget on some fighter planes does nothing to gain respect. It makes us look like one of those poor African countries with a starving population but shiny new Mig-21s in their airforces. Sensibly spending money upgrading our army and navy that we do use makes rather more sense than buying fighter jets that we don't use.


"Base renovations" would be minimal unless you can prove otherwise.

Are you going to buy back Wigram airbase? What about the other bases that have closed operations? Flying an aircraft called the electric jet because it was so new and different from previous aircraft after flying Scooters would of course be no problem. F-16s and old carrier aircraft are almost identical inside.


The NZ A4 upgrade would have made the transition easier on both flight crew and ground crew.

The Kahu upgrade gave the A4s performance levels 80%-90% of F-16As. Do you really think the hardware used to do that was the same? If it was you'd expect performance levels closer to 100% wouldn't you?


Flying NEW aircraft instead of 30+ year old airframes could have resulted in some associated costs being LOWER as labour hours per flight hour would have improved.

If we had F-14s, yes, but the Scooter was a very good aircraft. It was designed for carrier operation so it was very strong structurally. Most of its older avionics were replaced by newer systems so it wasn't that bad to maintain. On the other hand it was quite a simple aircraft. It wasn't a particularly fast aircraft and with any sensible load was subsonic. The F-16 is on the other hand very supersonic and has a very big and very powerful engine that is rather different from that of the Scooter.

Labour hours will be much higher for quite some considerable time while the aircraft is being learned.


I was referring to FUTURE upgradability....so that those airframes would maintain effectiveness in 10,20,30 years time


In 20 years time the Americans won't be going to war with it... it will have been replaced by F-35s.


To defend ourselves, as opposed to the reliance on others to look after us

From what?

If the Chinese spent a hundred billion dollars every year extra on defence it would take them 30 years to master carrier operations and to create all the support vessels and equipment that goes with it. The Indians would take less time and less money due to their experience with carriers, but even if they wanted it they couldn't do it now or in the forseeable future.


but is too stingy to pay for reasonable defense needs.


What reasonable defence needs? Name one scenario where we would realistically benefit from having fighter jets?


Good point the Chathams...as they are a big reason why we have one of the largest marine EEZ's in the world and one of the smallest budgets to protect it.

YOU DON'T POLICE EEZs WITH FIGHTER JETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You use MPAs, and ships.


leaving just one modern frigate to protect our entire EEZ from ANY threat is appropriate?


You point out that threat and the other Frigate will return.


That's like having one fat cop on foot to protect a city.

Ilegal fishing is not like city crime. Ooh and BTW if you want to use F-16s for cruising around the EEZ then send them back... you'd need something that actually had decent range like an F-15 or Flanker... and that would bankrupt the country in a year... do you know how much fuel they use an hour... using F-16s for that is rediculous...

The Skyhawks were NEVER used for Fishery control. The only time I ever heard of our Skyhawks being used for anything naval was when a boat company had a large boat lose its engine and they were liable for any damage it caused in a major shipping lane so they paid the Airforce something like $50,000 to sink it. Even then I think one of the Skyhawks lost part of its wing and had to divert to Dunedin Airport.


Hard to patrol an area of 4.6 MILLION K's with a SINGLE ocean going platform

Not only do they get help from Orions but fishing boats that are operating legally also assist... strange as it may sound those fishing legally don't like the fish getting pinched either.


they certainly got up to speed in Jaguars, Tornados, and F18s fast enough

They did when they are in an environment where the aircraft are known and there are experienced crew and pilots there to tell them what to do and what not to. Don't know where those people would be here if we got new F-16s... Probably a few would be sent to the US to learn and then come back and show everyone else... not something that would happen overnight.


There wouldn't be a need to maintain a LARGE stock of PGMs

So if we ever did need them we would try and order some more PGMs... at the same time our allies are probably doing the same... And how would that benefit those we were supposed to be helping?


I agree, the P3 is a great platform for our needs.....it would be great if we could pick up some more late model used airframes....unfortunately we don't have enough aircrews(budget) for the ones we have now.

Spending more on F-16s will solve this how???


Unfortunately, all they can do is patrol and surveil...they have no onboard weapons...that was axed too remember?

And what would you have them do?
Fly around a fishing boat till they actually see it fishing illegally and then sink it?
Or just sink it on sight?


ability to aggressively protect it at the moment.

Yeah cause aggressive cops are always the best cops... I saw it on "The Shield", and "Dirty Harry".


The introduction of some new navy offshore hulls will help, but in an area of such enormous size it still provides an extremely limited ability to protect and enforce as well as completely lacks the ability to respond immediately.

Immediately?
Unless the ilegal fishermen are prepared to scuttle their boat and catch a French submarine in the middle of the pacific back to France I really don't know what you are talking about.
I think the effectiveness of Jet fighters was proven during the Rainbow Warrior affair when that Yacht was sunk mid pacific... oops no it wasn't... no fighter jet ever even got close.

You seem to be talking about NZ not spending enough on patrolling our EEZ and also wondering why we didn't spend some more money on fighter planes... well Duh!!! The two are only related in the sense that the Orions are actually getting an upgrade that we couldn't afford before now that we have stopped wasting money on little boy toys.

[phony doctors. hello!]

1. Harriers are a complete fantasy.
The likelyhood that nz would even need, or could carry out combined air/ground and naval operations against any nation without overwhelming support from us/aus/un allies etc is just as much a fantasy. nz could not afford and will never need its own ability to carry out offensive air strikes or combat air patrols using harriers from leased ships. for one, how could the nz navy with just 2 underarmed anzac frigates adequately protect a container ship carrying 3-4 harriers on its decks. we could use harriers as a way of reinforcing a british or allied carrier, but how could a half squadron of nz harriers make much of a difference to the airwing of a british/american or even australian carrier if the auzzies go that way. how would ships designed to accommodate the maxium possible sustainable air wing be able to fit an extra half dozen harriers anyway? as for land operations, where exactly are nz troops ever going to deploy where allied air support is not available in significant quantity.

2. The F-16 purchase was a good deal and a good choice at the time, but now that it has been canned it would be foolish to spend hundreds of millions on reconstitutiong the airstrike capability.

true, the disbandment of the air wing does create training issues for the armys surface to air missile capablity, SAS foreward air control training and the navys air defence training. however, the mistral sam system has proven laughably ineffective given that only now are radars being acquired, and considering the amount of cross training with australia, surely NZSAS FACs can do the australian course instead? our skyhawks of no 2 sqn spent nearly two decades based in nowra training the auz navy, so why cant they now reciprocate for our navy?
furthermore, there now exists an opportunity for nz to redirect its defence focus into just the kind of area that is essential for fighting the war on terrorism. yes airpower does play a key part, and will continue to do so, but how can one dozen or even two dozen F-16A Block 15s, a design which was developed in 1980, and does not possess the advanced APG-68 radars, (rather the older APG-66 which the skyhawks had under the kahu upgrade programme), information data link, lantern target designator pods, or JDAM capability, hope to make an effective contribution to such a conflict.

nz would be far better focussing its resources on certain aspects of the war on terrorism while maintaining its peacekeeping/enforcement capabilities. the F-16 and for that matter LAV money could have been better spent on acquiring an advanced version of the M-113, (ie the M-113A3/4) incorporating some of the LAV features while still allowing the same level of cross country mobility. Air force funding should be redirected to upgrading the orions to serve a role not only as maritime patrol but as electronic surveilliance platforms, able to support counter insurgeny operations such as those in afghanistan and iraq by providing real time imagery in situations where the anti air threat is negligable to high altitude platforms.
the us and its allies are vastly well endowed with aerial combat assets, and therefore the limited funding and support that nz could provide should be directed in areas where there is a need for reinforcement, namely special operations, intelligence, surveillance, etc.

NZ would do far better to spend its funds on creating and adequately equipping an SF commando company, similar to the australian 4RAR Commando, which could crosstrain extensively with and reinforce 4RAR in the event of a major conflict, and provide operational support and reinforcement for the NZSAS in areas such as afghanistan., as well as provide some relief on limited SAS resources in areas such as CSAR.

[oldsoak]

just a couple of pennies...

Stuff it, lets play devils advocate....grins evilly
If your sole purpose is going to be monitoring your EEZ then you dont need Orions with sophisticated electronics needed to combat submarines. Its not going to need to carry weapons loads so goodbye weaponry. Something smaller and cheaper equipped with a decent radar - Embraer jet or Saab in decent numbers might do the trick. Get some PFI in and farm that lot out to civvies . Transporting troops can be done via the airlines or hired heavylifters so get rid of the Hercs. Expand your helo force so that it can become even more useful in the event of a natural disaster.

Right, become neutral like the Irish or the Finns etc and totally non-aligned and you wont need to get involved in anyone elses punchups except under the UN aegis. Play it right and you wont need more than a battalion of troops to fly the flag and look good on the world stage. You can get rid of your APC's etc and hitch rides in someone elses - save even more dosh and really cut back - all you need is 4 battalions of light infantry - one on each island, one in theatre and one undergoing training plus support troops. Have a SF unit by all means but if you stay at home, train up the armed defenders and maybe you wont need them. Navy ? who is going to invade you over x thousand miles of sea ? Who is big enough to do that and why would they want to ? You dont need frigates, you need fishery protection vessels and you certainly dont need a 5" naval gun on them or missiles, so can that lot.

There, I've saved you lots of cash ! Helen should hire me ! :lol:

Nah, seriously, NZ is in a pretty unique situation where the chances of you needing strike aircraft are few - the nearest sizeable power being Australia. Based on the assumption you two are never going to go to war, and Australia can cater for its own defence needs - what offensive capability do you need ? That rule must be true for all branches of the armed services. If keeping the EEZ policed is a major concern then there are comparitively cheap ways of policing it . Personally, I rather like the antipodeans and I wish you b*stards had stacks of oil to finance a force something like Singapores.

[GazB]

however, the mistral sam system has proven laughably ineffective given that only now are radars being acquired,

Mistral MANPADs will never offer an integrated airdefence network... hell, if you gave every soldier in the army a Mistral they couldn't even cover a quarter of the North Island let alone anything important. Mistral is an IR guided weapon that doesn't strictly require a radar.


the F-16 and for that matter LAV money could have been better spent on acquiring an advanced version of the M-113, (ie the M-113A3/4) incorporating some of the LAV features while still allowing the same level of cross country mobility.

The peace keeping roles we are most involved with suit wheeled vehicles more than tracked vehicles. I think those whining about the LAVs forget that M113s were aluminium and didn't stop that much either... both are fragile, and the wheeled vehicles are more expensive but they have TI sights and stabilised 25mm cannon and are much cheaper and easier to run. Life time costs will be greatly reduced. The extra weight is no problem as we never sent our M113s by air either... they all go by ship when we go to war.


the us and its allies are vastly well endowed with aerial combat assets, and therefore the limited funding and support that nz could provide should be directed in areas where there is a need for reinforcement, namely special operations, intelligence, surveillance, etc.


Absolutely agree. In fact I think replacement of the Hercs with something much more capable, though I'd suggest Il-76s as being about 5 times cheaper than C-17s. The west has a shortage of transports... decent long range transports... and when they are not on exercise we could use them to earn money too.


If your sole purpose is going to be monitoring your EEZ then you dont need Orions with sophisticated electronics needed to combat submarines.

It is not our sole purpose. An attacking force of landing ships and carrier groups is very unlikely for an invasion of NZ, but the deep fiords in the southwest of the south island are a great place to hide a boomer... American or Russian or Indian or Chinese. A sub could cause a lot of problems for us here, and fighters would be of no help... of course this is very unlikley, but as conventional powered subs proliferate there is a possibility... and it gives them something to do when they aren't looking for cheats and thieves.


Its not going to need to carry weapons loads so goodbye weaponry. Something smaller and cheaper equipped with a decent radar - Embraer jet or Saab in decent numbers might do the trick.

It doesn't carry weaponry now, and the flight distances involved are enormous... way to big for a converted business jet. We need something that can not only fly 2,000km to a yacht in trouble but also loiter for 4 hours keeping an eye on it while help comes.


Transporting troops can be done via the airlines or hired heavylifters so get rid of the Hercs. Expand your helo force so that it can become even more useful in the event of a natural disaster.


With more land area than the UK and less than a quarter of the population of London (we have 4 million) the real problem is range and distribution. Having lots of large and heavy (but capable) army helos located all around the country is not economically viable. Relying on airlines that might come and go for transport is a bit dodgy. Especially if we need to use the aircraft in Africa for a few months or years... not realy viable as they need to be able to maintain and operate from some very unusual places... don't want duplication... There are places a military pilot can be ordered to go that a civi pilot will just refuse.


Right, become neutral like the Irish or the Finns etc and totally non-aligned and you wont need to get involved in anyone elses punchups except under the UN aegis.

The removal of the fighters from the RNZAF wasn't to save money... the government actually increased spending overall... it was just a reevaluation of where the money was being spend.
We aren't peace loving beatniks here.
We are more into peace keeping than peace making, but we have a strong history of supporting our allies.


Personally, I rather like the antipodeans and I wish you b*stards had stacks of oil to finance a force something like Singapores.

I'd like to see F-14Ds and F-16s in our airforce too, but the reality is that we can either have a cool airforce or a Health and education system... and the way things are going I doubt we'll have those for long either.
I am happy to see more being spent on our army for a change... I have heard lots of rumours about our guys being crows... ie "That looks nice... can I have it?" Hoovering up kit from the other units they are posted with... not stealing mind you... just offering to put to good use.. :-) Now maybe they can take half the stuff other armies take on real wars.

[Royal]

I have heard lots of rumours about our guys being crows... ie "That looks nice... can I have it?" Hoovering up kit from the other units they are posted with... not stealing mind you... just offering to put to good use.. :-) Now maybe they can take half the stuff other armies take on real wars.

Kiwi's are good borrowers, no doubt. Then again all the Commonwealth nations (except for some reason the Cannucks - no offence, just my experience).

I still happily remember cleaning out the Kiwi Company's med ISO in Vitez when the left as UNPROFOR folded - everyone else was still recovering from the piss up after they thrashed BRITBAT 1 at basketball. Very usefull some of it was too.

Thanks guys ;)

[Flagg]

Well I have to admit defeat when I am completely and utterly alone in this.....everyone seems to be across the other side of the spectrum on this one.

I just can't become comfortable with New Zealand lacking ANY indigenous combat aviation.

It just doesn't feel right......but when I'm standing alone and everyone else is opposed...I must be wrong...oh well...maybe we'll find a heap of oil and then we can go shopping for toys...one can always hope!

I've only got one scrounging story:

I was ordered by my section commander to go down the road to the Aussie platoon and swap out all of their good rat packs and replace them all with saved up Mushroom Risatto rat packs.....I told the few aussies about their camp they could go down the road for a shower or hop in the creek to cool off while I watched their kit...valuable skills to learn indeed ;)

[perdurabo]

rofl

[oldsoak]

Nah, your not alone. If you have a CAG operating in your waters with the idea of getting you to a negotiating table then something smaller and faster than an Orion with long range anti ship missiles might well be in demand. Australia has a larger coastline than yourselves with an even greater area to patrol so they might not take to the idea od diverting resources to you. You will certainly need an MPA of some kind and you will need to have a weapon delivery platform that can get missiles quickly into a particular area. MPAs are too expensive to risk in attack.

[GazB]

It just doesn't feel right......but when I'm standing alone and everyone else is opposed...I must be wrong...oh well...maybe we'll find a heap of oil and then we can go shopping for toys...one can always hope!


I didn't like the idea of losing fighter pilots either. A great uncle of mine died in WWII delivering Spitfires from Scotland and Kiwi fighter pilots certainly contributed during WWII whether they flew NZ planes of donned RAF colours. It was a great tradition and now it is gone.

But the reality of the situation is that we have to decide whether we want to keep a tradition and keep the assets we do use struggling, or we spend money on the things we actually use so maybe we can use the better and maybe even avoid situations like the one with that poor Brit tanker who might still be breathing if his government had spent a bit more sensibly. (In my very biased opinion money for small arms and flak jackets is better spent than on Boomer subs or state of the art fighters like Typhoon).


You will certainly need an MPA of some kind and you will need to have a weapon delivery platform that can get missiles quickly into a particular area. MPAs are too expensive to risk in attack.

What for? Russian fishing boats don't normally carry anything that could bring down an MPA flying at medium altitudes. Besides they probably want to increase trade with NZ, not jeopardise it. Who else is there? Japanese Whaling ships? A few boats going to or coming from Antarctica? We aren't even on a main shipping route.

[oldsoak]

It just doesn't feel right......but when I'm standing alone and everyone else is opposed...I must be wrong...oh well...maybe we'll find a heap of oil and then we can go shopping for toys...one can always hope!


.



You will certainly need an MPA of some kind and you will need to have a weapon delivery platform that can get missiles quickly into a particular area. MPAs are too expensive to risk in attack.

What for? Russian fishing boats don't normally carry anything that could bring down an MPA flying at medium altitudes. Besides they probably want to increase trade with NZ, not jeopardise it. Who else is there? Japanese Whaling ships? A few boats going to or coming from Antarctica? We aren't even on a main shipping route.

- Gaz, I'm referring to if you have a CAG in your waters. Even I know Russian fishing boats dont normally carry SAMs.

[GazB]

- Gaz, I'm referring to if you have a CAG in your waters.

If you mean Carrier Action Group I'd suggest you look at a map of the world. The only reason for such a CAG to come all the way down here would be to invade NZ.

The first question you'd have to ask yourself is where would they come from? Unless it is an American CAG then they probably came past Australia. China has no operational carriers (casinos don't count), and as far as I know India has no beef with us either. That pretty much leaves the French and Thailand. No country in the world has a fully operational CAG that could go worldwide fully supported and equipped to do us real harm and that is the US. Most other countries with carriers don't have CAG that are all nukes and don't need refuelling on the way.

Finally any force actually powerful enough to get here would have little trouble dealing with a dozen fighters.

[martinexsquaddie]

you've forgotten the falklands defence force rofl they have a ship and there after your sheep rofl

[Flagg]

you've forgotten the falklands defence force they have a ship and there after your sheep

Exactly.....the Falkland Island Defense Force presents a distinct threat to NZ sheep stock.

I guess the "Just Say No To Livestock Buggery" campaign was a failure ;)

Hence the need for us to immediately acquire nuclear capability and make a pre-emptive strike rofl

[oldsoak]

- Gaz, I'm referring to if you have a CAG in your waters.

If you mean Carrier Action Group I'd suggest you look at a map of the world. The only reason for such a CAG to come all the way down here would be to invade NZ.

The first question you'd have to ask yourself is where would they come from? Unless it is an American CAG then they probably came past Australia. China has no operational carriers (casinos don't count), and as far as I know India has no beef with us either. That pretty much leaves the French and Thailand. No country in the world has a fully operational CAG that could go worldwide fully supported and equipped to do us real harm and that is the US. Most other countries with carriers don't have CAG that are all nukes and don't need refuelling on the way.

Finally any force actually powerful enough to get here would have little trouble dealing with a dozen fighters.

- It depends entirely on how you view future threats and how you figure in those threats. NZ may be attacked not because she is of strategic importance, but because of who she is allied with or signed treaties with. If you find yourself drawn into a conflict because some attack on a treaty nation you become a target. Isolation works both ways, you can be as far away from help as attack. If the Thais can aquire a carrier, so can others over a period of time. Come to think of it, it may not even be a carrier, it can be a fast frigate with cruise missiles. It may not be done as a serious attack just a means of ensuring that resources are diverted to you away from the real conflict.

[GazB]

So lets play your game and assume that some dictator somewhere gets pissed off with our support for something or rather and decides to mount a raid.

What do you expect us to do?

Why stop at a few dozen F-16s we obviously need F-22s to be sure of repelling any potential threat. And considering the cost of those F-22s we might as well get a fleet of subs, a carrier group or three... so we can have one carrier on patrol at all times plus one in maintainence and refit and the other training... (the relative crews on patrol, on shore leave and in training respectively).

To be honest there is no threat to NZ. Even if there was a few fighter planes they would most likely be useless in any event for any possible role in defending NZ.

You say we are isolated and vulnerable... no where near as vulnerable as an enemy ship in the south pacific. We have good relations with all our neighbours and that is unlikely to change in the near future.

[oldsoak]

F22's are not what you need. What you do need is fighter-bomber with a basic air to air capability. It does not have to be an F16 even - an A4 or A4 type would do the job just as well. The ability to get a ASM's to anyplace in your waters quickly is a plus. The ANZAC frigates you have/are getting ( you'll have to update me on this, because I dont have the info ) may end up being used as floating SAM batteries to protect your major areas of industry/population rather than seeking out the enemy. One plane going down or dropping a bomb anywhere in NZ, be it Auckland or Balclutha and theres a pretty good chance thats where they'll end up until Allies get to you to bolster your defences.
Mad dictators and friends ? Situations change. Thailand may yet end up in a spat with Malaysia over muslim terrists using the porous natiue of the Thai border. Malaysia has already had a incident with the Phillipines. Indonesia may yet become a fundamentalist state . Singapore has a rising Malay population who view Malaysias bumiputera policy with favour, cause unrest and guess who might get involved. Terrorists may well get on board a plane in Fiji and decide to drop in on you - may G*d forbid. What happens if you catch any of the ASEAN countries doing what Mossads just tried to do ? All these things can conspire to unravel a lot of plans.
What can you do ? I dont know what your air defence capability currently is, I do remember rapier and manpads -mistral ?. In the event of not getting an A4 or F!6 or whatever, the Orions will have to be re-armed and some investment in a SAM system would be good. Some of the Russian ones are highly capable and relatively cheap and deployable by your C130's . I appreciate that things like healthcare are very important and right now its all quiet on the western front. These things after all may never happen, but the answers to the problem must be there if it does.

[martinexsquaddie]

well the uks selling some tornado f3s off shortly
probably idea for nz big radar twin engines excellant bvr shootdown
big air frame could probably carry harpoon as well just in case
pilots can probably pinch from raf in fact probably the whole ground crew as well :(
in fact I can see a new reality TV show
airforce new life in the sun rofl

[Flagg]

well the uks selling some tornado f3s off shortly
probably idea for nz big radar twin engines excellant bvr shootdown
big air frame could probably carry harpoon as well just in case
pilots can probably pinch from raf in fact probably the whole ground crew as well

Well.....considering there are 1-2 dozen former RNZAF pilots flying in the RAF now.....maybe they could just "borrow" some jets if both the pilots and the jets are being made redundant.

[martinexsquaddie]

probably "borrrow" all the groundcrew as well :(

[oldsoak]

probably "borrrow" all the groundcrew as well :(

Quite a few service blokes would jump at the chance to live in NZ. not a bad little place at all.

[GazB]

airforce new life in the sun

I'd delay that till summer if I were you, it averages about 6-16 degrees C here in the winter at sea level. Much nicer in the summer but only really tropical in the far north...


It does not have to be an F16 even - an A4 or A4 type would do the job just as well.

That is what we had and we weren't using them for anything. To put it in perspective I suggest you get a map out and have a real good look at where NZ is. We are approximately 2,500km from Australia... 2,500km of empty ocean. NZ itself is long and narrow ad not the easiest place to defend. Fortunately the lack of threats to defend against is also in our favour. Of our 4 million people more than 3/4ths live in the North Island. When the Skyhawks were retired they didn't come further south than Christchurch... because it was too far! (Note central otago has several hyro lakes that generate quite a large amount of the electricity we use would be basically defenceless).


The ability to get a ASM's to anyplace in your waters quickly is a plus.

If that was ever necessary an Orion could carry more, much further and at comparable speed to most fighterbombers that are armed with large heavy ASMs.


The ANZAC frigates you have/are getting ( you'll have to update me on this, because I dont have the info ) may end up being used as floating SAM batteries to protect your major areas of industry/population rather than seeking out the enemy.

It is my understanding that of the four we had the option on we have bought two and are not taking up the other two. I have heard they are talking of getting a new logistics ship.


One plane going down or dropping a bomb anywhere in NZ, be it Auckland or Balclutha and theres a pretty good chance thats where they'll end up until Allies get to you to bolster your defences.


Can you name the type of plane that can fly from Australia to New Zealand with a decent combat load and then fly back to Australia, let alone Indonesia or Thailand? Only a strategic aircraft could manage that and Indonesia is teh only country that comes close with its former Tu-16s that are no longer in one piece... and even that would lack the range to get here.


Mad dictators and friends ? Situations change. Thailand may yet end up in a spat with Malaysia over muslim terrists using the porous natiue of the Thai border. Malaysia has already had a incident with the Phillipines. Indonesia may yet become a fundamentalist state . Singapore has a rising Malay population who view Malaysias bumiputera policy with favour, cause unrest and guess who might get involved.

Indeed we might offer some help, but I really don't see what your point is. If every asian country collapsed into chaos what really do you expect them to do to us? What could they do? ...and why wouldn't they do it to Australia too... who no doubt would be assisting us in trying to help them. Would they really send ships past Australias Collins class SSKs and 70 plus F/A-18 fighters to strike NZ?
Bit of a risk isn't it?

In such a case any attack would be directed at Australia and any fighters we had in NZ would not be much use... whether they were skyhawks or Falcons or Tornados. The ground forces we would send to Oz would be much more use... mobility being very important when you have a population of less than 20 million and a whole continent to protect/watch.



What happens if you catch any of the ASEAN countries doing what Mossads just tried to do ?

What? Steal an identity to get a passport? We'd arrest those we caught and ask for an appology from their government if there was proof it was state sponsored.


I do remember rapier and manpads -mistral ?.

As far as I know it is just Mistral MANPADs. I prefer Soviet and Russian arms to the stuff we use so I am not completely up to date on what we have.


Some of the Russian ones are highly capable and relatively cheap and deployable by your C130's .

I agree, but as we are optimising our forces to operate under a UN banner then compatibility with our closest allies is more important than performance or cost.


These things after all may never happen, but the answers to the problem must be there if it does.

Britains ability to take back the Falklands didn't appear over night... it was hard won... and unfortunately is often thrown away on a whim by bean counting politicans... I doubt the Argentines would have even bothered to invade if the UK still had CTOL carriers with Phantoms...

We have no empire to defend.


Well.....considering there are 1-2 dozen former RNZAF pilots flying in the RAF now.....maybe they could just "borrow" some jets if both the pilots and the jets are being made redundant.

I doubt they'd leave... and miss their chance at flying in Typhoons...


Quite a few service blokes would jump at the chance to live in NZ. not a bad little place at all.

;) We like it ;)

[oldsoak]

I have had a look at where NZ is because I was going to sail there from Oz and I do pop over from time to time to go after deer in S Island. I am aware that next to Australia, the other major big place is probably Antartica. The scenario I was referring to was one where the task was how to ensure that ANZUS forces were as stretched as possible and attempt to lock them into a situation where minimum effort would yield maximum results. The reference model given was German surface raiders during WWII. Actual damage was considered secondary to the political aim. Various possibilities were thrown in, one being a merchant ship converted to carry modified silkworms, another a pre-positioned warship. The targets had to be on the coast, although Wellington was discounted. Attack was considered feasible, defence difficult because of the vastness. The Orions were an ace, but were hampered by ROE. I think we'll have to shake and disagree on this one. I hear where you are coming from and appreciate that it seems extreme even for mad dictators inhabiting vast northern archipelagos. It sounded daft to me at first, but then it got interesting.

[RFSU]

This has got to be just about the stupidest rumor I have ever heard! What the **** would NZ need with Harriers? NZ will never (unless the Nazies have another go) be invaded and if they were just about every western country would **** all over the invaders. As for all this Australia is your protector crap, we aint their big brother we are their mates. New Zealanders are the scary little ****ers that we ask for when things are getting a bit hairy.

People are right in saying that we would destroy anyone who attacked NZed but that just aint going to happen. The Kiwi government isnt stupid enough to piss people off. Great PM too!

[GazB]

we aint their big brother we are their mates.

That is a very important point... we don't need a treaty for agreeing mutual protection ties... if anyone attacked Oz we would help them all we could without being asked. It is not a question of them being our shield to Asia, it is just something mates do. Even if the attacker promised not to invade NZ and we believed them we would still help the big desert across the ditch... just like they'd come over here and help the rain swept ice cube that is NZ if we needed it. :-)

I don't see the loss of the fighter component of our Airforce as letting down a mate or making a neighbour carry the cost of our defence. We actually increased defence spending and spent more money on the things we actually use and cut away some now dead wood that we weren't using to free up even more money.