Cryhavoc101
Donor
If they wanted an improved Airforce? Otherwise as you imply it ‘ain’t’ happening. I wasn’t suggesting that NZ should or would just that is what is required to maintain a modern airforce capability as per the OP.
AHC: Have the RNZAF maintain an air combat capability
- Thread starter La Rouge Beret
- Start date
Ramontxo
Donor
I don't know of possible ways of doing this. But maybe in the eightys the Government decides to take part in the Swedish Gripen development and this way they get a Squadron or two with unit price like the one Swedish Air Force pays. By all accounts it is an very good aircraft with low maintenance costs.
That makes sense. Still it seems to me that in hindsight the RNZAF might have been better off acquiring simpler aircraft in the 1990's. I seem to recall Botswana has only just decided to replace their former Canadian F5's (which IIRC the Canadians upgraded at some expense.)
Everyone got offered those embargoed F16's at one stage or another including the Italians iirc.
Off the top of my head I think even Ireland was offered them at the time...
Yeah there in lies the issue, effectively what's the point of us having jets. If we need them we are probably already fucked.
I'm sure the main reason Australia maintains strong armed forces to this day is that they were bombed by the Japanese. Their air force, navy and army also fought bitter desperate battles on their doorstep against a ruthless enemy. New Zealand's battles were mostly on the other side of the world. It's very hard to explain to people that to contribute to global security you have to bring something to the party. An air combat capability (however small) is part of that).
What about a larger role for NZ in the Falklands in ‘82, spurring stronger belief in the need for a full spectrum of military options?
How would that even work? I think I remember some of the RN taskings being taken by other navies to free up ships but nobody else got involved directly in the conflict.
The idea was not to use them for local defence, but to use them with allies elsewhere to avoid that necessity, and thus contribute to regional security. Standalone defence of NZ soil is a minor if not totally irrelevant consideration - it wasn't how the RNZAF trained or planned to operate, and is not something the NZDF as a whole has historically been capable of.
Last edited:
NZ contributed a frigate in 1982 to patrol in the Persian Gulf and thus relieve an RN vessel for Falklands duty. Apparently said frigate was offered by the NZ government to join the task force itself but declined as it wasn't up-to-date enough equipment wise.
Thats not correct. With no fighters an agressor only needs to overmatach the P3K and 2 frigates, so a modern SAM destroyer and a couple of frigates would be sufficient and there's pleny of countries that could do thst. However with only 24 F16s such a force would be mincemeat, the requirements to overmatch that becomes a carrier or forward basing of a robust and balanced air wing. The countries able to put such a force together, and the circumstances in which they would do so, because vanishingly small. A country crossing that threshold would provoke a collective security response. So that's what a fighter force does, raises the stakes for an agressor so high that NZ will never stand alone.
Yep, ninja'd.
There wouldn't be much that NZ industry in the 80's could offer to such a deal. Among the speculators on other forums the Gripen is a fan favourite for fantasy football RNZAF combat wing reboots though
Mumbles said:
Interesting! Didn't know that.
I think it would be interesting to speculate on what NZ might have done had the British suffered greater losses against the Argentines. Would that have prompted distant governments like that of NZ to rethink their vulnerability?
Another question is whether an extended War in Vietnam--say, because of a more successful American counter-insurgency strategy--would have been a continued draw on NZ resources, prompting stronger commitment to defense spending.
SsgtC
Banned
Or it could have the exact opposite effect and result in a "never again" attitude even stronger than OTL's.
I dunno, I think the RNZN were already pretty familiar with the capabilities of well handled A-4's against ships
. The RNZAF was able to teach even a post-Falklands Invincible a few lessons during exercises in late 1983.NZ's commitment was pretty minimal anyway, both for sustainability, and to limit the chances of severe casualties - having a company mauled might have been accepted as a cost of doing business for the US, but would be an unaffordable disaster for the NZ army.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
I dunno, I think the RNZN were already pretty familiar with the capabilities of well handled A-4's against ships
On a more personal note, I remember looking down at a Kiwi Skyhawk from a bridge wing and, thinking you are nearly <expletive> surfing.
Given how closely the Kiwi commitment to Vietnam was tied to ours perhaps a different Australian Vietnam experience would be enough to create butterflies for the NZDF. Perhaps for example some 3rd generation NZDF Canberra bombers join RAAF 2 squadron to provide a night interdiction capability, rotating a pair through for a while. In the case of use em or lose em a bit of fast jet bombing in the late 60s would create institutional memory for the RNZAF that might get them over the line in 2001.
Errolwi
Monthly Donor
My ex-RNZN officer mate said that it was quite disturbing to be standing on the top of a Leander's hangar and have an A-4K fly over the flight deck ... below you. And that was before that got lots of practice training the RAN.