I think the best solution really was if New Zealand had found the cash in the mid '80s to replace the A-4 with a buy of new-build Hornets through a deal with Australia. No more than 20 would be needed. One operational squadron and a conversion flight. Deeper maintenance and upgrades could be done in conjunction with the RAAF, and there could be sharing of consumables and parts. It would deliver a much more useful and cost-effective capability.
What if New Zealand acquired a fleet of fast jet combat air craft circa 2000
- Thread starter Blue cat
- Start date
I think the best solution really was if New Zealand had found the cash in the mid '80s to replace the A-4 with a buy of new-build Hornets through a deal with Australia. No more than 20 would be needed. One operational squadron and a conversion flight. Deeper maintenance and upgrades could be done in conjunction with the RAAF, and there could be sharing of consumables and parts. It would deliver a much more useful and cost-effective capability.
Nice idea
But,I doubt New Zealand had the money in the 1980's. I seem to recall there was some discussion of New Zeland acquiring used Mirages from Australia and the govt at the time commented that it was to expensive.
Last edited:
The cook islands is actually part of NZ and its defense is managed by NZ as well as foriegn affairs, while infrastructure they are building are all needing to be replaced due to unsuitability for the climate. The roading projects are being redone by NZ because the Chinese corps did a really bad job, the court house and police HQ is literally rotting and has cost the island allegedly more to replace. Cook Island confidence in Chinas capacity is low and moves towards further moves towards independence that would necessitate such a thing is unwanted. Henry Puna, current PM tried this move under John Keys government and it recieved little support, largely due to the fact most Cook Islanders live in NZ and routinely travel there and many were uncomfortable with the idea of separating their visas. NZ government also said no. That being said Puna is corrupt as they come with a litany of scandals and public misuse of funds. Vanuatu has denied offering bases to China though as an independent Pacific nation, pressure would be on them.
Anyway back to orginal point though, China wasnt a credible threat to NZ in the early 90s when these purchases were being made. Japan was still expected to overtake them. Factoring China in long term wasnt a priority, Ill concede that priorities may change in the future and maybe the issue will need to be revisited, but the issue remains, why buy jets in the late 80s or 90s? A cash strapped nation facing different uses for its military that didnt involve jets, we needed logistical craft to support what is largely as a support and logistic oriented military. You need a POD that changes that or creates a credible threat.
EDIT okay weird thought, what about Soviet aircraft? After the collapse of the USSR the Russian federation offered NZ a nuclear submarine to sweeten trade deals I think, what if they offered a cheap jet package? Too hard to maintain? Too different from our Allies?
Last edited:
Ian_W
Banned
Turkey.
They built the bomb truck version of the C295 for exactly that role for use against the PKK, who have roughly equal anti-air capability to Da3sh.
We keep coming back to this. They did / do have the money; they just didn’t / don’t want to spend it on defence. Whether they should is a fair question, but saying they can’t / couldn’t afford it is just not true.
That may be but my recollection is the govt at the time decided used Mirages were to expensive and I don't recall any real push back re that position.
I am not sure how one would have gotten the govt and the bulk of population at large to see things differently.
Okay.. But I was living in New Zealand at the time, and considered (and still consider) myself to be "pro defense" person, yet I was inclined to accept the position of the govt that buying used Mirages wasn't affordable. I suspect you would have needed a substantial change in public opinion to bring a purchase of new or used supersonic combat air craft into the relm of the possible for New Zealand in the 1980's.
So, on the politics, making defence more of a priority - at the expense of something else - would absolutely be challenging. In Australia, opinion polls have shown defence doesn’t rate as a priority for the average punter and I expect it would be the same in NZ. The arguments, however, go beyond the average citizen and concern such considerations as how you are seen by your allies and on the world stage. So it’s not so much about changing public opinion as the more considered views of the political and bureaucratic leadership. How might their minds be changed? There could be a number of divergences from history that could together or individually do the trick. Given we’re taking about a time where the Cold War was still a reality, we might have seen a red Indonesia, a greater Soviet presence in the Asia-Pacific, and/or a more formal alliance (NATO-like) in this region. New Zealand might have agreed to maintain certain defence capabilities, forward deployed or committed in time of tension, as it had in the past. All of this aside, based on what actually occurred, and today, I would agree that the argument for New Zealand to spend more on defence is not so compelling. Though if I were a Kiwi I would argue that the future was becoming less certain.
Ian_W
Banned
The flip side to this is that New Zealand's military activities for the last century and a half have either been big wars where they were fundamentally armed by allies, or colonial policing ie COIN.
All of the above, to the point where Russian gear is in the "never gonna happen" basket.
Riain
Banned
Your timing is off by a decade, the F16 deal was announced in December 1998 and cancelled in July 2002.
Because you cannot replace the capability within a decade, and more likely two decades, if the original decision was wrong. Even the lease-buy of already existing F16s was going to take 2 1/2 years, the rapid RAAF acquisition of the Super Hornet reached IOC in 4 years which was noted to be fast. However in both cases the respective air forces were converting already existing capabilities (A4, F111) to new capabilities thus the entire wing and squadron structures were in place. Thus the RNZAF would have had a GPCAPT of 20+ years service to command the Wing, 2 WGCDR of 15-20 years service to command the squadrons and 4-5 SQNLDRs of 12-18 years service to fill the squadron executive positions and command the FLTLTs and FLOFFs in the air. So while NZ may be able to buy some LIF advanced trainers and fighters from the US or Europe within 5 years and train and convert a few RNZAF pilots and recruit a few more from Commonwealth countries it won't have the Wing and Squadron structures to fight these units.
BTW a good portion of the RNZAF fast jet force's operating costs was paid for by the RAN, I think that it was something like 50% of 2 Sqn RNZAFs operating costs.
Riain
Banned
The COIN conflicts were fought with forces raised and trained to fight large, conventional, high-intensity wars.
The fact of the matter is that forces suitable for large, high-intensity wars can be 'dumbed down' to fight limited, or unconventional wars with limited warning whereas forces equipped and trained to fight limited, low-intensity cannot 'ramped-up' to fight large, high-intensity wars. The fact of the mater is that a wing of F16s would have given the NZ Government far more options that some prop driven COIN bomb truck.
It certainly is arguable that the mid1980s might be better from a kit POV but the politics are awful and the economics more awful..
Whereas in the late 90s -early 00s, big kit is actually affordable but the politics potentially doable.
A 1980s purchase needs all sorts of PODs. Probably starting with 1975 Election which saw National defeat the Labour government rather handsomely. That gave Muldoon a decisive mandate to do anything he wanted.
Now it is probably true to say that NZ's economic situation was going to be a bit shit whomever became government but Muldoon's economic stewardship as Minister of Finance is widely agreed to have rather aggravated it.
Whereas in the late 90s -early 00s, big kit is actually affordable but the politics potentially doable.
A 1980s purchase needs all sorts of PODs. Probably starting with 1975 Election which saw National defeat the Labour government rather handsomely. That gave Muldoon a decisive mandate to do anything he wanted.
Now it is probably true to say that NZ's economic situation was going to be a bit shit whomever became government but Muldoon's economic stewardship as Minister of Finance is widely agreed to have rather aggravated it.
Interesting. Searching online it seems Turkey only has the older CN-235, and I can't find any information on it using said aircraft as "bomb trucks". Jordan has developed a "gunship" version of both aircraft, and, of course, there are armed maritime patrol versions of both. A "bomb truck" though? Do you have any links?
Your dates aren't quite right. The F-16 lease cancellation announcement was in March 2000, the decision to disband the ACW in May 2000, and the actual disbandment in December 2001. A number of Skyhawks and Macchis were kept airworthy for demonstration and currency flights through the mid-2000's.
I agree with some above. The Muldoon victory example is potentially quite interesting, though I profess to be no expert on NZ politics (I know a bit more about the endless Telenovela that is the Australian compulsion to the leadership spill, but that is another matter).
New Zealand is isolated and quite challenging to get to in relative terms. Their principal interest protecting their EEZ, given they are not really set-up for prolonged land deployments abroad. Below is a map of the Pacific nation's Exclusive Economic Zones:
A larger version is found here.
As you can see, the mint green coloured area is NZ and is, obviously nearby Australia and possessions held by the US. Presumably the assumption was that they would be protected by both territories, and perhaps, in the case of a major regional war, as unlikely as that might seem, Malaysia and Indonesia in support? The question here is, where is the threat? I suppose you could say the Cook Islands, Tokelau and Niue are vulnerable to capture in a Pacific War, say a showdown between the United States and the PR China. Would you spend the money to operate an Expeditionary Air Wing from the Cook Islands with a fighter squadron, maritime recon, refuelling and transport capabilities to cover that area? If so what is their mission, air defence and air interdiction in Melanesia? Presumably anti-illegal migrant patrols as well, which is more politically delicate. And if they were to go there, what sort of fighters are we talking about? One General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon cost between $14 and $18 million dollars per unit. Add in considerable training and support costs and you have an expensive outlay, presumably for three squadrons, one for home defence, one for Pacific island deployment and one on-standby to be sent abroad, for example from the 1990s, the New Zealand contribution to the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq in the Persian Gulf, enforcing no-fly zones over Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Choosing say a mixed air defence, air attack option built around a and using BAE Hawks as flying artillery pieces still costs something like $18m per unit.
The question is why? They are not near any naval chokepoints or areas of high strategic significance really. Yes, these are prestige items that says something about the country who operates them and yes, would certainly make life easier if the Chinese continue to grow in power. However, they chose to cut those assets because they didn't think they were going to need them. They may be wrong in the future, but not for the moment.
Ultimately, the politics probably has to change. The aforementioned Muldoon example is a good one. If we were to assume that somehow the Philippines and/or Indonesia remained repressive states, for example if the Aquinos were unsuccessful dispatching Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, this would mean that the neighbourhood NZ found herself in was less safe or if the PR China had taken very decisive action against Taiwan and/or Hong Kong and Macau would likely ensure that NZ retained and developed her fighter capability. Indeed, anything that involves NZ feeling threatened and at all less than supported by Australia probably means that NZ retains and develops her fighter capability and developing her Maritime recon, aerial refuelling and Naval assets alongside. In that sense NZ chose not to do this, because they didn't feel they needed to do that, much as Ireland feels reasonably safe and secure next-door to the UK and not far from France, the Netherlands and Germany who all have submarines and well developed fighter capabilities and can act swiftly within the NATO framework to defend a non-NATO, EU partner. FYI, the Irish had fighters in the past, they operated Hawker Hurricanes until round about the end of the Second World War, Supermarine Seafires until 1955 and de Havilland Vampires in the Cold War. Presently, they do not operate any kind of fighter, instead relying on a training craft, the Pilatus PC-9 and collaboration with the British for air defence. Change the calculus and they step-up their capabilities.
New Zealand is isolated and quite challenging to get to in relative terms. Their principal interest protecting their EEZ, given they are not really set-up for prolonged land deployments abroad. Below is a map of the Pacific nation's Exclusive Economic Zones:
A larger version is found here.
As you can see, the mint green coloured area is NZ and is, obviously nearby Australia and possessions held by the US. Presumably the assumption was that they would be protected by both territories, and perhaps, in the case of a major regional war, as unlikely as that might seem, Malaysia and Indonesia in support? The question here is, where is the threat? I suppose you could say the Cook Islands, Tokelau and Niue are vulnerable to capture in a Pacific War, say a showdown between the United States and the PR China. Would you spend the money to operate an Expeditionary Air Wing from the Cook Islands with a fighter squadron, maritime recon, refuelling and transport capabilities to cover that area? If so what is their mission, air defence and air interdiction in Melanesia? Presumably anti-illegal migrant patrols as well, which is more politically delicate. And if they were to go there, what sort of fighters are we talking about? One General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon cost between $14 and $18 million dollars per unit. Add in considerable training and support costs and you have an expensive outlay, presumably for three squadrons, one for home defence, one for Pacific island deployment and one on-standby to be sent abroad, for example from the 1990s, the New Zealand contribution to the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq in the Persian Gulf, enforcing no-fly zones over Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Choosing say a mixed air defence, air attack option built around a and using BAE Hawks as flying artillery pieces still costs something like $18m per unit.
The question is why? They are not near any naval chokepoints or areas of high strategic significance really. Yes, these are prestige items that says something about the country who operates them and yes, would certainly make life easier if the Chinese continue to grow in power. However, they chose to cut those assets because they didn't think they were going to need them. They may be wrong in the future, but not for the moment.
Ultimately, the politics probably has to change. The aforementioned Muldoon example is a good one. If we were to assume that somehow the Philippines and/or Indonesia remained repressive states, for example if the Aquinos were unsuccessful dispatching Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, this would mean that the neighbourhood NZ found herself in was less safe or if the PR China had taken very decisive action against Taiwan and/or Hong Kong and Macau would likely ensure that NZ retained and developed her fighter capability. Indeed, anything that involves NZ feeling threatened and at all less than supported by Australia probably means that NZ retains and develops her fighter capability and developing her Maritime recon, aerial refuelling and Naval assets alongside. In that sense NZ chose not to do this, because they didn't feel they needed to do that, much as Ireland feels reasonably safe and secure next-door to the UK and not far from France, the Netherlands and Germany who all have submarines and well developed fighter capabilities and can act swiftly within the NATO framework to defend a non-NATO, EU partner. FYI, the Irish had fighters in the past, they operated Hawker Hurricanes until round about the end of the Second World War, Supermarine Seafires until 1955 and de Havilland Vampires in the Cold War. Presently, they do not operate any kind of fighter, instead relying on a training craft, the Pilatus PC-9 and collaboration with the British for air defence. Change the calculus and they step-up their capabilities.