NZFF

I note on One news tonight the US State Dept has given approval for the sale of the Skyhawks. You have to love red tape when it takes soooo long. There was never any question of finding a buyer, it was always about that one tick in the box. Of course there is a long road ahead as a lot of maintenance will be required to bring them back to a flyable "as sold" state. It would have probably been cheaper to keep flying them than to go thru this process. Thanks Aunty Helen.

Finally,

Still think the whole scenario was a massive mistake.

We should be flying the F16's now and maybe an Oceanaia Airforce or something would have been an option combined with Aussie.

That way our pilots could fly the aircraft of the today.

NZ pilots are proven to be the best trained in the world, this needs to be recognised. Look at Kiwi Red, better than the yanks with an A4 not state of the art F16s.

Come on John Key, Look at defence of our country, instead of supporting people whom can't be bothered supporting themselves!

As you can see I'm a bit Pissed on this subject.
Time for a beer I think.

Cheers

Yes it would have been nice to have F-16's. They were a bargain price too. Sadly it would be a very expensive and nigh on impossible task to get a fighter force back in the RNZAF now. But never say never I guess. At least with the opening of more doors with the US Military we might see some of their hardware here soon.

deaneb wrote:

QUOTE (deaneb @ Oct 7 2009, 10:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes it would have been nice to have F-16's. They were a bargain price too. Sadly it would be a very expensive and nigh on impossible task to get a fighter force back in the RNZAF now. But never say never I guess. At least with the opening of more doors with the US Military we might see some of their hardware here soon.

And hey Deane....... with 3 Sqn moving to their brand new hangar at Ohakea - 75 Sqn could even have their old hangar back!!

spongebob206 wrote:

QUOTE (spongebob206 @ Oct 7 2009, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Finally,

Still think the whole scenario was a massive mistake.

We should be flying the F16's now and maybe an Oceanaia Airforce or something would have been an option combined with Aussie.

That way our pilots could fly the aircraft of the today.

NZ pilots are proven to be the best trained in the world, this needs to be recognised. Look at Kiwi Red, better than the yanks with an A4 not state of the art F16s.

Come on John Key, Look at defence of our country, instead of supporting people whom can't be bothered supporting themselves!

As you can see I'm a bit Pissed on this subject.
Time for a beer I think.

Cheers

Personally I'm torn on this issue. We're all plane buffs here, and I love the old A4s to BITS but the plain fact is that NZ just doesn't need a combat wing. Over 30 odd years, the A4s were used in anger how many times? Ok, you could argue that a more modern air combat capability would mean we could deploy more than just the SAS to Afghanistan, but really, they wouldn't be making a serious difference over there would they?

Yes our guys in clapped out old A4s kicked arse compared to yankee F16 jet jocks, and yes fast jets are cool to watch at airshows, and fun to fly, but hell, it's a real shedload of taxpayer $$ to pay for a couple of dozen big boys toys isn't it?

Couple of related things here - apparently the Argentines have something called the "A-4AR" - saw a pic of it in a magazine today. Anyone know how it compares to a project Kahu A4K?

Also saw a mag that listed the top 5 US military aircraft. They were, in this order (counting down): F22 F35, F15C, F15E and at number 1 was the FA18E Super Hornet! Wow! I was a bit surprised by that...I guess I'd only heard the BAD publicity about the superbug...Anyway, to put it in perspective, they state that it's a "Cheap" frontline combat aircraft, and even suggest that there is a bit of a campaign going on to see the Superbug equipping Air National Guard units, and to hell with the F22! They state the cost as being a shade under 50 million US$, and so if thats a CHEAP modern combat aircraft, then for NZ to get a couple of squadrons of them, you're looking at upwards of a couple of billon NZ$. Kinda like the amount paid for the ANZAC Frigates, and we all know how controversial THAT purchase was!

Mark

markll - It's not about using them, it's about having the ability to use them. You only have to look at Singapore for a good idea of what a small nations defence force should be like.

YES Singapore had a much more real threat with large overbearing and potentially hostile countries right on their doorstep, but how long until NZ is in that position?

While the idea of someone wanting to invade NZ is far from out minds, the reality is that if a country wanted to (i.e China) they would have little trouble doing so. The NZ Government (aka Aunty Helen) has gone quite a way down the road of economic ties holding up the country, but they don't mean shite when a large military state decides they don't want to pay our price for the products which keep our country going, and they decide they'll come and take it rather than paying for it.

In essence, it shouldn't be a walk in a park to take what is ours. The true cost is when/if we ever get invaded, unable to put up a fight other than few under-armed Naval ships, and the Army with 50% of it's artillery sitting in a warehouse un-used. Don't get me wrong, the NZDF are great at what they do, but it is likely that the defence of NZ would come down to militia groups (how many farmers etc in NZ are good hunters?).

The most feasible option to re-build a strike force in NZ is through co-operation with the RAAF and RAF, the countries with which we are already closely related to, and where most of the NZ fighter jocks went (most of whom are dying to fly fast-jets in NZ. Getting the Aermacchis back online would be the first step - then finding a suitable frontline fighter would be the next step. The F-16 or F-18 are the most likely options for that these days, but it'd be unlikely that we'd get new ones.

Either way one can only dream, and sit back with your fingers crossed that the future is as peachy as the Labour government had planned for!

Does this mean that there will be some A4's doing test flights etc around the Woodbourne area as the maintainence guys get them back to airworthy conditions? And if they are being sent to the USA, how will they be transported there? Flown over or crated up and shipped on a boat?

More than likely, unless they are sold as-is with the re-generation being done where they are delivered. My guess is that they will depart in the same fashion they arrived - via ship, but perhaps this time not on an aircraft carrier!

Yes my understanding is that the aircraft will be serviced and test flown out of Woodbourne. They will be shipped, but unsure where from - one option talked about was Tauranga.

redkiwi wrote:

QUOTE (redkiwi @ Oct 8 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...

While the idea of someone wanting to invade NZ is far from out minds, the reality is that if a country wanted to (i.e China) they would have little trouble doing so. The NZ Government (aka Aunty Helen) has gone quite a way down the road of economic ties holding up the country, but they don't mean shite when a large military state decides they don't want to pay our price for the products which keep our country going, and they decide they'll come and take it rather than paying for it.

...

Sorry, but I just don't believe that theres any point in trying to pretend that theres much of ANYTHING that we could do if a hostile nation the size of, say, China, decided it wanted our land for themselves. I mean seriously, China probably has more MILITARY personnel than our entire population. You're KIDDING YOURSELF if you think that a squadron or two of 3 generation old F16s or 18s are gonna make any kind of difference if it came to a scrap with someone like that.

The reality is that we have neither the manpower nor the economic strength to sustain a meaningful self defence force. Blessedly, we are stuck 2000 odd km from our nearest neighbour, and much further than that from our nearest potential enemy, so we don't have to worry much about invasion.

Mark

markll wrote:

QUOTE (markll @ Oct 9 2009, 01:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but I just don't believe that theres any point in trying to pretend that theres much of ANYTHING that we could do if a hostile nation the size of, say, China, decided it wanted our land for themselves. I mean seriously, China probably has more MILITARY personnel than our entire population. You're KIDDING YOURSELF if you think that a squadron or two of 3 generation old F16s or 18s are gonna make any kind of difference if it came to a scrap with someone like that.

The reality is that we have neither the manpower nor the economic strength to sustain a meaningful self defence force. Blessedly, we are stuck 2000 odd km from our nearest neighbour, and much further than that from our nearest potential enemy, so we don't have to worry much about invasion.

Mark

Well you are rather misinformed if you think that the sole reason for a defence force or combat squadron is to defend NZ from invaders !! Of course as you have pointed out this would be impossible, we, like any other country will rely on our allies, but we do need to play our part (which we do rather well in fact) on the world stage. A combat force is integral in any defence operation and now we don't have one, it does make it hard for the Air Force Navy and Army to exercise. The fact that the Skyhawks were used only a handful of times in anger is not a reason to get rid of them, anymore than the rest of the world should stop flying Orions because the cold war is over. There is no doubt in my mind that turning our noses up at the F-16s which would of cost $1 Billion over a 10 year period has affected our relationship with the US. They still have not released what it cost to cancell the deal but I believe it was over $100 million. Compare this with 8 NH90's which are costing over $700 million it puts it into perspective as to how good a value it was.
The thought that we don't have to worry about an invasion because we are so far away is not good thinking as the world economy becomes global and the need for resources is ever increasing. Isolation never helped the Faulklands. In reality a lot of our fishing and offshore resources are at risk.
I'll leave you with one other thought. Australia's biggest threat is from Indonesia which has a big defence force. There is a lot of coastline to protect. Australia has (as far as I'm aware) just 4 submarines. These are enough of a deterrent to make Indonesia take note and consider that as another threat or obstacle. The fact these tired old subs could be anywhere is better than not having them at all.

Aussie have six subs..very capable ones. But yes I totally agree Deane with what you say its about contributing, pulling our weight, protecting our trading partners and trading routes.

If we spend more on defence in line with the percentage of GDP close to what Australia does we should be able to afford at least one squadron of F-18/16s (which are still very capable platforms) or similar. Look at Norway, Denmark and Finland ..smilar populations and those countries have three squadrons of F-16 or F-18s each.

Another note.. we spent a heap on the LAV-25s (too many it seems)..this could of paid for a squadron of F-16s..what packs a bigger punch and deterence?

Markll - it's not about being able to stop them, it's about making it more than just a trip across the ocean for them to come and harass us.

I saw an interesting article regarding Indonesia's strike capability as many previous articles were comparing SU-33 stats against F-16/F-111/F-35 capability and saying how not properly replacing the F-111 wasn't a good move. What was said is that despite the SU-33 having good stats when in good condition, to get the most out of those stats you need to have good ground crew to keep them flying and to have them available for training, pilots that are proficient in using all the onboard systems, and having experience with wartime exercise. When you put the whole thing into perspective it became very obvious that the aerial threat posed by Indonesia was more about power in numbers than aircraft capabilities.

I'm with MarkII on this one.

Mark errr...III

deaneb wrote:

QUOTE (deaneb @ Oct 9 2009, 10:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well you are rather misinformed if you think that the sole reason for a defence force or combat squadron is to defend NZ from invaders !! Of course as you have pointed out this would be impossible, we, like any other country will rely on our allies, but we do need to play our part (which we do rather well in fact) on the world stage. A combat force is integral in any defence operation and now we don't have one, it does make it hard for the Air Force Navy and Army to exercise. The fact that the Skyhawks were used only a handful of times in anger is not a reason to get rid of them, anymore than the rest of the world should stop flying Orions because the cold war is over. There is no doubt in my mind that turning our noses up at the F-16s which would of cost $1 Billion over a 10 year period has affected our relationship with the US. They still have not released what it cost to cancell the deal but I believe it was over $100 million. Compare this with 8 NH90's which are costing over $700 million it puts it into perspective as to how good a value it was.
The thought that we don't have to worry about an invasion because we are so far away is not good thinking as the world economy becomes global and the need for resources is ever increasing. Isolation never helped the Faulklands. In reality a lot of our fishing and offshore resources are at risk.
I'll leave you with one other thought. Australia's biggest threat is from Indonesia which has a big defence force. There is a lot of coastline to protect. Australia has (as far as I'm aware) just 4 submarines. These are enough of a deterrent to make Indonesia take note and consider that as another threat or obstacle. The fact these tired old subs could be anywhere is better than not having them at all.

Hi Dean, a couple of things here. First, I wasn't stating that standing up to threat of invasion is the only reason to have a combat capable airforce, rather I was pointing out the stupidity of such an argument, since that seemed to be the sole justification the post I was responding to used.

In fact, that seems to be the only role that most NZers seem to see for an air combat force, and that definitely contributed to the decision to disband it. My great uncle flew with 75 sqn in WWII and to have the squadron disbanded, after such a long and distinguished history was a real slap in the face for the memory of all those like him who served with those squadrons over the decades.

But you need to realise that without a change in mindset from both politicians AND the general public, the money required to set up and operate an air combat force will NEVER be justifiable. They can perform in a whole range of roles, just like the other defense assets that you mentioned, but until they are seen as something more than just a home-based offensive weapon, there will never be another air combat force in the RNZAF. Like I said, I hate it, I believe we should have one, and I am insulted by the fact that we don't have one. But that doesn't change the political reality of the situation NZ is in.

BTW, the australian Collins class subs are far from tired old subs. The oldest (HMAS Collins) was only comissioned 13 years ago. In fact they are generally regarded as amongst the most advanced diesel subs in the world. They have six, and are looking to increase that to 12, as well as looking to begin replacement of the Collins with a new Australian designed and built submarine class beginning around 2025. Definitely something for Indonesia to be worried about.

Mark

redkiwi wrote:

QUOTE (redkiwi @ Oct 9 2009, 11:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Markll - it's not about being able to stop them, it's about making it more than just a trip across the ocean for them to come and harass us.

Of course, they have to HAVE a reason to come and harass us - thats one point I was trying to make. What reason would another country have to come here? The spectacular scenery? Our adventure tourism industry? Or maybe they just want to join the awesome FS community?

Mark

Naki wrote:

QUOTE (Naki @ Oct 9 2009, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If we spend more on defence in line with the percentage of GDP close to what Australia does we should be able to afford at least one squadron of F-18/16s (which are still very capable platforms) or similar. Look at Norway, Denmark and Finland ..smilar populations and those countries have three squadrons of F-16 or F-18s each.

Another note.. we spent a heap on the LAV-25s (too many it seems)..this could of paid for a squadron of F-16s..what packs a bigger punch and deterence?

Yep, Denmark, Norway, Finland...similar population to us...similar GDP? Not sure...similar threat environment? Not even close.

Which packs a bigger punch and deterrence out of 120 LAV 25s vs 2 squadrons of Block 15 F-16A's? Thats probably debatable actually, but that isn't really the point. Which has more utility value? Given the pig headed refusal of the hippie labour government and the PC fools who voted for them, a bunch of APCs/IFVs that can be deployed easily overseas, most likely ('course it would never have occurred to the politicans that a squadron of fighters could ALSO be deployed overseas)

Mark

Their GDPs are slightly higher but I am not saying we should get 50-70 F-16s or F-18s either, which all these countries have, one squadron of 18 F-16s or Gripens would suffice.

I would disagree that a bunch of LAVs are more deployable than a detachment of F-16/18s. F-16s would be self delployable and be taken overseas in a flash with a C-130 or two in support. LAVs could only be deployable in sufficent numbers by ship (and our Navy only has 1 ship that could do this) and would take time to get to their destination.

markll wrote:

QUOTE (markll @ Oct 9 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given the pig headed refusal of the hippie labour government and the PC fools who voted for them

OK you're insulting me now, along with every other reader of this forum who has ever voted Labour.

Instead of turning this thread into (more of) a political discussion, how about you PM me and explain to me why I am a "PC fool"? I'd be quite interested to know what makes you think you know me so well.


Mark

markll wrote:

QUOTE (markll @ Oct 14 2009, 12:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, they have to HAVE a reason to come and harass us - thats one point I was trying to make. What reason would another country have to come here? The spectacular scenery? Our adventure tourism industry? Or maybe they just want to join the awesome FS community?

We are proberly the closest country to Antartica which has the largest source of fresh water in the world..

I'm not going to get into political arguments on this one !!! Even after serving 22 years in the RNZAF I can argue both ways as to whether we should or should not have a strike capability. We can't change things now.
I'm just pleased, as an aircraft enthusiast, that these birds are going to fly another day. It would have been sad to see them turned into scrap metal, which was one possible outcome.