AHC: RNZAF F16 Con-Ops

How far is an F-16 really going to go if it is supersonic?

And even then it Probably wouldn’t be quick enough to get shoot down an airliner highjacked in NZ airspace.
 
The Hawk 200 isn't a like for like replacement for the Skyhawk, the Hawk 200 is a 2nd rate ground attack aircraft. The Skyhawk was a 1st rate combat aircraft when it was purchased in 1970 and again when it was upgraded in the 80s and by the late 90s had run out of life.

The important thing to keep in mind with NZ is that it's a first tier military or its nothing, no point having the fighter force as the only 2nd tier capability.

Hawk 200 was a very capable aircraft with a modern nav/attack system, capable of carrying freefall bombs, Paveway LGB's, guided ASM/AShM and AAM's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Hawk_200

Arguably what killed the Hawk 200 was that many airforces who traditionally operated light fighters/light attack aircraft were suddenly offered a lot of more capable kit either as a result of post-Coldwar retrenchment by both Western and former Soviet nations and the need to have parity with other countries who suddenly picked up a lot of the new surplus equipment. In an environment where a country could pick up a couple of squadrons of Mig 29's or F16's for a fraction of the price payable even a few years previously something like a Hawk 200 isn't as attractive.
 
How far is an F-16 really going to go if it is supersonic?

And even then it Probably wouldn’t be quick enough to get shoot down an airliner highjacked in NZ airspace.

I suppose the ability of a small force of interceptors (probably based at single base) to defend a country such as New Zealand would depend on warning time. Over the horizon radars could conceivably provide a couple of hours or more of warning time. Sure, if a seemingly friendly air liner suddenly becomes un friendly a few minutes from landing (or immediately after take off) that would present a problem, but I suspect lots of other nations would also struggle to deal with such a threat.

Depending on the radars, over the horizon radars might also be of some use in tracking ships ? There would probably be some aviation safety benefits to having long range radars tracking air traffic in the vicinity of New Zealand.

Edit to add: I suspect a conventional GCI radar would also be needed to help the interceptor(s) find its target once the interceptor was air borne. I am doubtful New Zeland would have built a GCI radar network covering the entire country, but a few radars covering major population centers would seem feasible (and there was probably an air traffic control system that might have been able to be leveraged.). The more I think about this issue, spending money on radars might make more sense than spending money on fancy fighter aircraft with ground attack capability, although I suppose if a nation has radars they would want at least some interceptors. In the event of a real threat perhaps allies could provide additional interceptors on short notice, but the warning and control system would presumably need to be in place ahead of time unless AWACS air craft can come along with the interceptors. Plugging additional interceptors into an existing system would seem eaiser to me than building the whole system from scratch in a hurry.
 
Last edited:
The Hawk 200 isn't a like for like replacement for the Skyhawk, the Hawk 200 is a 2nd rate ground attack aircraft. The Skyhawk was a 1st rate combat aircraft when it was purchased in 1970 and again when it was upgraded in the 80s and by the late 90s had run out of life.

The important thing to keep in mind with NZ is that it's a first tier military or its nothing, no point having the fighter force as the only 2nd tier capability.
The A4 may have been a first class aircraft in 1970 (though that's at best debatable the RN rejected it as obsolete in the late 50's) but by the late 90's it was very much a second or even third rate aircraft.
 
The A4 may have been a first class aircraft in 1970 (though that's at best debatable the RN rejected it as obsolete in the late 50's) but by the late 90's it was very much a second or even third rate aircraft.
I must say I was impressed by the descriptions of the final upgrades of the New Zealand A4's. Adding a modern radar seemed like a nice upgrade.

Also sorry for somewhat taking this thread in different direction, but I suppose domestic air defence / air soverginity could have been a conceviable mission for a small fleet of F16's or similar air craft had New Zealand acquired them.
 
Last edited:
I must say I was impressed by the descriptions of the final upgrades of the New Zealand A4's. Adding a modern radar seemed like a nice upgrade.

It was. The Kiwi A-4s were very capable A-4s, perhaps the most up to date ones in the world, just like the RNZN Leander-class frigates were the most up-to-date Leanders in the world. It was still a bit like having the most up-to-date Morris Minor in the world, unfortunately.

I suppose domestic air defence / air soverginity could have been a conceviable mission for a small fleet of F16's or similar air craft had New Zealand acquired them.

It could have been a mission, yes, but it could never have been the main mission. The actual need for that was very small, and the fast-jet capability was absorbing a great deal of the NZDF budget. The strongest arguments in favour of retaining it were always in terms of the value it provided to defence partners, and thus the leverage and goodwill it generated in dealing with them.
 
The A4 may have been a first class aircraft in 1970 (though that's at best debatable the RN rejected it as obsolete in the late 50's) but by the late 90's it was very much a second or even third rate aircraft.

The RN rejected it as obsolete in the 50s? I've not heard that story.

It was. The Kiwi A-4s were very capable A-4s, perhaps the most up to date ones in the world, just like the RNZN Leander-class frigates were the most up-to-date Leanders in the world. It was still a bit like having the most up-to-date Morris Minor in the world, unfortunately.

The morris minor is a good analogy, it is a small, economical 4 seater with some luggage space. However just because it is old after 20+ years of service doesn't mean it gets replaced by a motorbike with a sidecar.

For perspective the USMC replaced their A4s with AV8Bs, the Israelis, SIngaporese, Malaysians with F16s and the Argentine Navy with Super Etendards, taking the next capability step rather than accepting the 50s performance parameters which is all the Hawk 200 delivers.
 
The RN rejected it as obsolete in the 50s? I've not heard that story.



The morris minor is a good analogy, it is a small, economical 4 seater with some luggage space. However just because it is old after 20+ years of service doesn't mean it gets replaced by a motorbike with a sidecar.

For perspective the USMC replaced their A4s with AV8Bs, the Israelis, SIngaporese, Malaysians with F16s and the Argentine Navy with Super Etendards, taking the next capability step rather than accepting the 50s performance parameters which is all the Hawk 200 delivers.

Perhaps the post Falklands war Argentine acquisition of refurbished and upgraded A4s from the US might have been a better approach for the RNZAF to have followed ? I can see why the RNZAF wanted new F16s but politically a phased in upgrade of new to New Zealand upgraded A4s might have been more viable. According to Wikipedia the costs were $282 Million US for 36 air craft. Perhaps the RNZAF could have leveraged some of the components of the prior upgrades to drive down the costs ?
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
They weren't new F-16s, they were stored old models (embargoed from being delivered to Pakistan) that needed mid-life upgrades to be be vaguely relevant. Which was still a better option than trying to tart up A-4s again.
 
They weren't new F-16s, they were stored old models (embargoed from being delivered to Pakistan) that needed mid-life upgrades to be be vaguely relevant. Which was still a better option than trying to tart up A-4s again.
My understanding is the F16's in question had only been flown a few hours each. I take your point about the mid life upgrade. In any event a newly elected government cancelled the project so perhaps another approach that could have been spun as a sustainment of an existing capability might not have been cancelled.
 
My understanding is the F16's in question had only been flown a few hours each. I take your point about the mid life upgrade. In any event a newly elected government cancelled the project so perhaps another approach that could have been spun as a sustainment of an existing capability might not have been cancelled.

So to use an automotive term, not used by certified pre-owned. :)
 
As far as I know the air craft in question were never loaned to any other air force :)

True but I learned this little tidbit last weekend while shopping for a new car. I did not understand how a dealership could sell a car with over 4000 miles on it as a new car and not a used (or pre-owned) car. It's because it was a dealership loaner car, it had never been sold and it was a 2019 so it still counted as a new car (we didn't buy it).
 
True but I learned this little tidbit last weekend while shopping for a new car. I did not understand how a dealership could sell a car with over 4000 miles on it as a new car and not a used (or pre-owned) car. It's because it was a dealership loaner car, it had never been sold and it was a 2019 so it still counted as a new car (we didn't buy it).
Interesting... I have run across demo or loaner cars being sold over the years, but I don't recall them being sold as "new."
 
True but I learned this little tidbit last weekend while shopping for a new car. I did not understand how a dealership could sell a car with over 4000 miles on it as a new car and not a used (or pre-owned) car. It's because it was a dealership loaner car, it had never been sold and it was a 2019 so it still counted as a new car (we didn't buy it).

In the UK they are called demonstrators and are normally sold at a serious discount. Having been used as demonstrators this meant they were maintained in absolute first rate condition and have the advantage of being free of some of those irritating bugs sometimes encountered with a new car.
 
The morris minor is a good analogy, it is a small, economical 4 seater with some luggage space. However just because it is old after 20+ years of service doesn't mean it gets replaced by a motorbike with a sidecar.

For perspective the USMC replaced their A4s with AV8Bs, the Israelis, SIngaporese, Malaysians with F16s and the Argentine Navy with Super Etendards, taking the next capability step rather than accepting the 50s performance parameters which is all the Hawk 200 delivers.

Oh, I agree absolutely. And if the RNZAF wanted something like the Hawk, they already had the Macchis. There would have been no point bringing in another armed jet trainer.

Perhaps the post Falklands war Argentine acquisition of refurbished and upgraded A4s from the US might have been a better approach for the RNZAF to have followed?

I can't see why it would be. The Kiwi A-4s were about as good as Skyhawks get and their electronics and radars etc. were probably better than anything the ex-US A-4s had to offer. An engine upgrade like the Singaporean A-4s would have been about the only practical improvement that could have been made. By the 1990s, however, the limitations of the airframe were starting to become significant issues. It wasn't just about airframe life, NZ had (still has?) enough of an aerospace industry to keep refurbishing them as long as anyone was willing to spend the cash. But the rest of the world had kept moving on, and NZ really only had 3 choices: re-equip with a current multi-role fighter (like the F-16); accept it could only afford a token air combat capability (standardise on the Macchis or equivalent); or get out of the game and use the money for something else. They chose the 3rd option, on the basis that there's no prizes for being second best if you have to actually send your fighters into combat, and although I think it was a mistake there are plausible arguments that it wasn't. Basically, by 1995 the only reason to use A-4s as a front-line combat aircraft is if you need to fit them onto a tiny carrier (Argentina). It pains me greatly to say it, but pretty much any other case is better served by something else.
 
Also the NZ government pitched that they would easily be able to sell them on for a profit... they didn't as there was little market for them and no takers for several years. During that time they were ironically having to be regularly flown to ensure they were in good working order! Eventually they sold some to a training/trials company and the remainder were donated to museums.
 
Top