My first thought was that NZ should match Australia by a ratio similiar to its defence spending but having just checked NZ budget is the equivalent of 2.3 Billion AUD with Australia’s being 34.6 Billion AUD that would be a ratio of 15:1 so about 96:6.5 F18s so you can see how that is not going to work! So at the end of the day the answer has to be a large increase in defence spending!
AHC: Have the RNZAF maintain an air combat capability
- Thread starter La Rouge Beret
- Start date
IIRC New Zealand has a defence budget of approximately 1 % of GDP, so this would require an increase to 2 % of GDP and, if we were to upgrade the air combat capability than the budget would be increased further again.
However, this would require bipartisan support for such a move and that to my mind would require a fairly radical change in the NZ political climate.
Does the answer lay in RNZAF providing a niche capability to defence operations, i.e. focusing on the light attack / CAS role?
So that the A - 4 K Skyhawks are replaced by something equivalent to the Hawk 200, which would fit nicely within the timeline or even a left field option of the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching Kuo. As others have suggested the T-50 Golden Eagle would be an appropriate selection if we were looking at options in circa 2018.
Just to weigh in on another matter, my understanding is that a salient reason that the RNZN never acquired a third FFH was due to manning concerns.
However, this would require bipartisan support for such a move and that to my mind would require a fairly radical change in the NZ political climate.
Does the answer lay in RNZAF providing a niche capability to defence operations, i.e. focusing on the light attack / CAS role?
So that the A - 4 K Skyhawks are replaced by something equivalent to the Hawk 200, which would fit nicely within the timeline or even a left field option of the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching Kuo. As others have suggested the T-50 Golden Eagle would be an appropriate selection if we were looking at options in circa 2018.
Just to weigh in on another matter, my understanding is that a salient reason that the RNZN never acquired a third FFH was due to manning concerns.
Barry Bull
Donor
Yet IIRC the Army has armoured fighting vehicles and the Navy has frigates ?
Edit to add.. I wonder if in theory at least the P-8's could some how intercept another air craft ? Maybe add a .50 cal gun pod with tracers for firing warning shots and a few AAM's and call it done
The NZA's AFV are just plain APCs for mobility and there is the possibility that no new frigates would be obtained in future.
My understanding is that the army has "LAV25's" with 25mm chain guns. A bit more than just an APC IMHO.
Barry Bull
Donor
APC is being posited as the alternative to IFV, Infantry Fighting Vehicle. LAVs are usually too lightly armed and armored to be considered as IFVs.
Ok but with a 25mm chain gun IMHO the LAV's do more than just provide mobility.
Barry Bull
Donor
25mm really is just standard equipment these days and LAV is far too light armoured, it is basically an upgraded "Battlefield Taxi".
In so far as LAV type vehicles exist without turret mounted auto cannon (ie. The Canadian Bison) I'll agree to disagree with you at this point
An interesting question (to me anyways) is:
Could New Zealand have purchased a useful mix of new or used Bison type armoured vehicles and surplus Canadian fighter aircraft for the same price as the LAV purchase ?
Would the savings from having a smaller fleet of less sophisticated armoured vehicles (that don't need 25mm practice ammo) have funded a basic air defence capability ?
Edit to add:
Maybe in the 1990's New Zealand does an arms deal with Canada and gets surplus F5's and new or used Bison APC's ? (In this time line New Zealand would presumably get the upgraded F5's that were sold to Botswana IOTL.)
I realize the surplus Canadian F5's would be less than ideal but they would be better than nothing
Also I seem to recall the Australiains hired some former Canadian fighter pilots as Canada downsized their fighter force. Potentially New Zealand could have done the same thing. This would have cut down on training costs.
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
That depends on your definition of what constitutes a threat. NZs national interests may be well served by defending the current rules based international order, and threats to that order are threats to NZ. NZ may consider their national interest served by close cooperation with Australia in south east Asia, such as the lonstanding ANZAC battlegroup in East Timor. Perhaps NZ could justify having a fighter force to participate in these sorts of security activities.
In more recent years the Chinese are doing their shonky infiltration by finance in the SWP. I doubt it will be long before a threat could be perceived by NZ in the SWP. In that case the time it takes to develop the OC of a fighter squadron or wing means NZ can do literally nothing if a threat developed in less than 20 years.
Barry Bull
Donor
The Chinese activities are mainly aimed at securing resource rich SCS and the route of resources access from middle east. It would be difficult to justify increase in military spending if the main threat is not military in nature.
Barry Bull
Donor
In so far as LAV type vehicles exist without turret mounted auto cannon (ie. The Canadian Bison) I'll agree to disagree with you at this point
An interesting question (to me anyways) is:
Could New Zealand have purchased a useful mix of new or used Bison type armoured vehicles and surplus Canadian fighter aircraft for the same price as the LAV purchase ?
Would the savings from having a smaller fleet of less sophisticated armoured vehicles (that don't need 25mm practice ammo) have funded a basic air defence capability ?
Edit to add:
Maybe in the 1990's New Zealand does an arms deal with Canada and gets surplus F5's and new or used Bison APC's ? (In this time line New Zealand would presumably get the upgraded F5's that were sold to Botswana IOTL.)
I realize the surplus Canadian F5's would be less than ideal but they would be better than nothing
Also I seem to recall the Australiains hired some former Canadian fighter pilots as Canada downsized their fighter force. Potentially New Zealand could have done the same thing. This would have cut down on training costs.
Again, the problem is why would New Zealand do that?
Riain
Banned
Mainly, but that leaves plenty left over for the SWP. Given it takes 20 years to develop a wing commander to command a fighter squadron is that long enough for SWP nations to default on their loans and grant sovereignty to the chinese of the ports etc and turn into a military threat.
Of course that wasn't a problem 20 years ago, and that's what we're talking about.
Barry Bull
Donor
Given that NZ is so far away from the SWP nations and many SWP nations are not exactly welcoming China with open arms due to ongoing conflicts in SCS, NZ may consider it not overtly threatening in the military arena.
Riain
Banned
New Zealand is far away from the South West Pacific nations? NZ is a south west pacific nation.
Edit to add:
Maybe in the 1990's New Zealand does an arms deal with Canada and gets surplus F5's and new or used Bison APC's ? (In this time line New Zealand would presumably get the upgraded F5's that were sold to Botswana IOTL.)
I realize the surplus Canadian F5's would be less than ideal but they would be better than nothing
This requires a much earlier PoD, as the upgraded CF-5D would have been a step down systems-wise from the Kahu-upgraded Skyhawk that started entering service in 1989-90 (as in one or two respects would have been the block 15 F-16A/B). The RAN A-4G's were acquired with the Kahu programme in mind, so if acquiring the CF-5D means butterflying Kahu, it also means butterflying the A-4G acquisition, which then introduces an A-4K replacement in the 80's. The F-5 was considered and rejected by the RNZAF in favour of the initial A-4K purchase (at the same time the Canadians were considering and rejecting the A-4 in favour of the F-5), so a change of mind on that would be needed as well.
Which on exercises like Vanguard and RIMPAC is one of the things 75Sqn did with the Skyhawk. 2Sqn did the same thing with the RAN while based in Australia from 1991 to 2001. That basing arrangement was set to continue with the F-16.
Requires National somehow winning the 1984 snap election, which is very unlikely.