An alternative to the Kiwi F-16

[Gunnarnz]

By 1999, the RNZAF Skyhawks were getting pretty long in the tooth. They'd had two major upgrades, and as A-4s go they compared pretty well... but they were still A-4s, and if NZ was going to stay in the fast-jet game a replacement was needed. The government at the time took steps to purchase 28 F-16A/Bs, but the purchase was cancelled shortly afterwards. Frankly, the F-16s in question wouldn't have been all that great in the NZ context, so perhaps it was no great loss. However, that was the end of the RNZAF air combat force.

Let's assume that the F-16s were cancelled as in OTL (or never selected in the first place), but the government of the day still wants to retain an air combat force which can operate meaningfully alongside their likely allies and coalition partners. What other aircraft might be considered and selected?

Some parameters:

• Aircraft must not be obsolescent (or no more obsolescent than the F-16s were).
• Aircraft must be cheap enough that a similar quantity can be acquired (24-36).
• Aircraft must be multirole (or able to pretend they are if you squint).
• Spares, stores, and training must be readily available.
• Preferably requires no new infrastructure, or as little as possible.

Any thoughts?

 

[Wings]

Mirage 2000 ?

 

[sampleswift]

FA-18 Hornets/Super Hornets?
Harrier Jump Jets?

 

[Father Maryland]

In 1999 you could probably purchase used ( or even new) Mig 29s a fraction the cost of the F16s. Though that obviously isn't very realistic and has a host of diplomatic and strategic problems.

Somewhat less unrealistic would I guess be purchasing used F4s and upgrading them. Not as modern as F16s but still relatively decent. I think the Israelis were offering the F4 " F2020 Terminator" upgrade package around that time.

Otherwise perhaps some sort of upgraded Mirage III? Perhaps upgraded ex IDF Kfirs?

 

[Talwar]

I'd be thinking a trainer-type aircraft - Germany was selling used Alphas, whose twin engine layout might be a perk. Or a variant of the Hawk for something a little newer, albeit single-engined. Either way, they can haul around Sidewinders and basic air-to-surface stuff when not training pilots.

 

[Riain]

I'm afraid the F16 deal was too unique to be replicated elsewhere with the cost parameter in place, however if you want to spend more money the world is your oyster although the result will likely be F16s anyway.

 

[Blue cat]

By 1999, the RNZAF Skyhawks were getting pretty long in the tooth. They'd had two major upgrades, and as A-4s go they compared pretty well... but they were still A-4s, and if NZ was going to stay in the fast-jet game a replacement was needed. The government at the time took steps to purchase 28 F-16A/Bs, but the purchase was cancelled shortly afterwards. Frankly, the F-16s in question wouldn't have been all that great in the NZ context, so perhaps it was no great loss. However, that was the end of the RNZAF air combat force.

Let's assume that the F-16s were cancelled as in OTL (or never selected in the first place), but the government of the day still wants to retain an air combat force which can operate meaningfully alongside their likely allies and coalition partners. What other aircraft might be considered and selected?

Some parameters:

• Aircraft must not be obsolescent (or no more obsolescent than the F-16s were).
• Aircraft must be cheap enough that a similar quantity can be acquired (24-36).
• Aircraft must be multirole (or able to pretend they are if you squint).
• Spares, stores, and training must be readily available.
• Preferably requires no new infrastructure, or as little as possible.

Any thoughts?

IMHO the historical F16 proposal was going to be hard to beat.

That being said maybe Canada could have been persuaded to sell some used CF18`s. (Maybe some how the NZLAV acquisition gets coupled to Canada supplying F18`s and New Zealand finds some extra money to acquire and operate them.) Canada also had used upgraded F5`s for sale for a period of time but IMHO they don`t tick all the necessary boxes in your post.

The real question is where New Zealand finds the money for fast jets to replace the A4`s.

 

[Monk78]

nothing, there is no need for modern jet fighters for NZ

if needed they can ask the Australian F-18s for help

 

[Father Maryland]

nothing, there is no need for modern jet fighters for NZ

if needed they can ask the Australian F-18s for help

I mean at least at the time in order to send any appreciable number of the small Australian F18 force to New Zealand they'd probably need USAF air tanker support.

 

[Father Maryland]

I'd be thinking a trainer-type aircraft - Germany was selling used Alphas, whose twin engine layout might be a perk. Or a variant of the Hawk for something a little newer, albeit single-engined. Either way, they can haul around Sidewinders and basic air-to-surface stuff when not training pilots.

Probably the cheapest and most realistic if the F16 deal is getting killed on cost. One of the combat variants of the Hawk seems like the best bet in terms of capabilities.

 

[Blue cat]

I mean at least at the time in order to send any appreciable number of the small Australian F18 force to New Zealand they'd probably need USAF air tanker support.

What would they do when the got to New Zealand ? Does New Zealand have any form of GCI system to control allied fighter aircraft or would the Australians have to bring AWACS type aircraft or ground based radars along with them as well ?

 

[Monk78]

In 1999 you could probably purchase used ( or even new) Mig 29s a fraction the cost of the F16s. Though that obviously isn't very realistic and has a host of diplomatic and strategic problems.

Somewhat less unrealistic would I guess be purchasing used F4s and upgrading them. Not as modern as F16s but still relatively decent. I think the Israelis were offering the F4 " F2020 Terminator" upgrade package around that time.

Otherwise perhaps some sort of upgraded Mirage III?

Perhaps upgraded ex IDF Kfirs?

Probably the cheapest and most realistic if the F16 deal is getting killed on cost. One of the combat variants of the Hawk seems like the best bet in terms of capabilities.

i really like the kfir idea
mig29 is far too specialized

 

[Monk78]

What would they do when the got to New Zealand ? Does New Zealand have any form of GCI system to control allied fighter aircraft or would the Australians have to bring AWACS type aircraft or ground based radars along with them as well ?

USAF or USN will

 

[Petike]

How about the SAAB Gripen, albeit bought in lower numbers ? Ten would fully suffice, IMHO.

It can even take off from straight flat motorways when needed, which is a huge plus. I don't think the F-16 can achieve the same feat.

Also, why would you need as many as 30 F-16 for a small country like New Zealand ? It seems like huge overkill to me.

 

[Father Maryland]

i really like the kfir idea
mig29 is far too specialized

I'm kind of liking the idea of the Kiwi's deciding to go with upgraded Kfirs/Mirage III's with the upgrades done by Israel and South Africa and potentially going with something like the Denel "Super Cheetah" (The Cheetah itself being a very heavily upgraded Mirage III that Apartheid era South Africa created. I believe the original actually had some substantial for the time provision for usage of smart weapons.) that I think Denel proposed at some point.

The planes could probably be got pretty cheap and it's easier for nations to do a upgrade program with a limited run (In this case say 36 aircraft) then develop and produce a all new aircraft. Perhaps the South Africans/Israeli's could also rationalize that a upgraded Kfir/Cheetah could likely get some signifigant export success (relatively speaking) among countries too poor to afford new or lightly used "modern aircraft" (F18s, F16s, F15s, Mirage 2000s) but wanting a somewhat decent Western plane with some NATO standard capabilities and some okay for 1999 capabilities in terms of air to air combat, interception, and ground attack. In OTL Israel succeeded in exporting more then a few Kfirs to poorer states like Colombia, Sri Lanka, and Ecuador (and sold a number to the US for dissimilar fighter aircraft training.) Potentially you could have South Africa export used Cheetah's as well (doing an upgrade program with Israel).

Perhaps have the South African economy do better then OTL at the time resulting in a slightly larger military budget. The South African's replace their Cheetah's with something newer (Ironically perhaps F16s or used F18s) and their Cheetah's are stored. The Kiwi's make a deal to purchase say 36 of their used Cheetahs (perhaps adding a few of the two seater variant as a trainer as well) with the deal that the cost of the aircraft themselves is very low or even free with the caveat that as part of the agreement the Kiwis agree to pay for a joint Israeli/South African upgrade program to refurbish and overhaul the Cheetah's engines and air frame (in order to extend their lifespan) while upgrading their avionics, electronics, and weapons systems allowing them to be used for as more multi role aircraft capable of both air defense duties and air strike duties (I'm thinking among other things the ability to carry small anti ship cruise missiles for theoretically defending NZ from invasion) and theoretically expeditionary capabilities so they can be deployed abroad to assist allies or participate in peace keeping actions.

I think the latter should be a big internal selling point for the Kiwis. Namely that they can be used to support peace keeping efforts (Give examples from the attempts at interventions during the genocides in the Balkans or Rwanda. Point out that if the Dutch guards at Sbrenica had had even moderate air support that massacre might have been avoided and thousands saved. Or that striking the Rwandan radio stations might have saved tens of thousands of life's. Or the value of the air forces deployed during the UN Congolese intervention in the 60's had in stabilizing the country. Basically portray the purchase as somewhat strangely being the sound policy of a responsible international citizen with an interest in maintaining human rights abroad.

 

[Father Maryland]

How about the SAAB Gripen, albeit bought in lower numbers ? Ten would fully suffice, IMHO.

It can even take off from straight flat motorways when needed, which is a huge plus. I don't think the F-16 can achieve the same feat.

Also, why would you need as many as 30 F-16 for a small country like New Zealand ? It seems like huge overkill to me.

As a general rule with something like a modern fighter it's best to assume that around a third are actually capable of being airworthy/combat at any given time. The other's are in transport, being overhauled, being used for training, being repaired, or otherwise unavailable. So buying ten leaves you to theoretically be able to defend all of New Zealands territory and participate in things like foreign peace keeping with a sum total of three planes.

If you want to actually have ten planes to use at any given time then you need to buy at least thirty.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Let's just be clear that the RNZAF A-4's did not represent a fast jet capability and were barely more jet (besides systems) than many fast jet trainers in the 1990s and 2000s. The Skyhawk and BAE Hawk are basically the same size and empty weight, though the A-4 has more thrust and a higher MTOW. My personal suggestion would be the Hawk, in both the two-seat Hawk trainer and the single-seat Hawk 200 configurations. The Hawk trainers can (generally) carry two Sidewinders and would be adequate for almost any air sovereignty activities the RNZAF would need to do. During the Cold War, the British Hawk training units were supposed to be used as point-defense interceptors with all-aspect Sidewinders to defend targets in the UK against Soviet bombers and missiles. The Hawk 200s would replace the A-4's Kahu capabilities with another airplane equipped with an AN/APG-66 radar, IRST, and the ability to use AMRAAMs, Mavericks, and Paveway LGBs. Carrier-capable T-45 Goshawks were in production at St. Louis at the time (1988 - 2009), but that type doesn't have Sidewinder capability, although having carrier-qualified RNZAF pilots (like the Argentines) might be interesting.

 

[Blue cat]

Let's just be clear that the RNZAF A-4's did not represent a fast jet capability and were barely more jet (besides systems) than many fast jet trainers in the 1990s and 2000s. The Skyhawk and BAE Hawk are basically the same size and empty weight, though the A-4 has more thrust and a higher MTOW. My personal suggestion would be the Hawk, in both the two-seat Hawk trainer and the single-seat Hawk 200 configurations. The Hawk trainers can (generally) carry two Sidewinders and would be adequate for almost any air sovereignty activities the RNZAF would need to do. During the Cold War, the British Hawk training units were supposed to be used as point-defense interceptors with all-aspect Sidewinders to defend targets in the UK against Soviet bombers and missiles. The Hawk 200s would replace the A-4's Kahu capabilities with another airplane equipped with an AN/APG-66 radar, IRST, and the ability to use AMRAAMs, Mavericks, and Paveway LGBs. Carrier-capable T-45 Goshawks were in production at St. Louis at the time (1988 - 2009), but that type doesn't have Sidewinder capability, although having carrier-qualified RNZAF pilots (like the Argentines) might be interesting.

As I understand things what New Zealand wanted from the F16 acquisition was the ability to operate along side their allies and supply a credible air element in a regional high intensity conflict. I seem to recall there was some discussion about the F16's in question perhaps not being up for that task without an upgrade. The F16 at least had a viable upgrade path (as would have the F18 and other modern western air craft.)

IMHO the Kiwi part of me would have liked to have seen New Zealand retain a basic fast jet / air soverginity capability that maybe could have provided a basic daytime CAP capability for overseas use (along with a modest domestic GCI capability) but apparently that wasn't the plan for the proposed F16 force. I will get off my soap box now Edit to add, one of the problems I see with New Zealand not having any real air defense capability is that if New Zealand does get involved in an overseas high intensity conflict, their opponents could divert allied fighters away from the main battle theater by simply occasionally flying long range harassment missions over New Zealand using long range MPA type air craft and other similar platforms. Sure New Zealand's Allies could no doubt supply fighter air craft to put a stop to those activities, but IMHO that mission does not really require a first line 4th or higher generation fighter.

 

[Rickshaw]

Ask Australia to station a squadron of RAAF F/A-18s in New Zealand. New Zealand did the same deal but in reverse when they first purchased the RAN A4s from the RAN. They stationed the squadron at Nowra in NSW. They were used as high speed targets against the RAN ships. The F/A-18s would be available to defend Australia if needed and they would provide valuable training to the Kiwis.

 

[Riain]

The RNZAF ConOps for the F16 was to operate as a wing with RAAF F/A18s, with the Hornets doing the air to air, anti-ship and other niche things Hornets could do and the F16s doing the ground attack missions with self-defence capability using the AIM9L, B model Mavericks and 500lb LGBs inherited from the A4 force.

Before we start picking advanced trainers off the shelf, WTF is NZ going to do with them? They need to be a reasonable partner to the RAAF in a big regional blow up and the RAAF doesn't need Hawk 200s that would have to be escorted with limited Hornets. It's difficult to think of something available in 1999 that fits this bill and will be able to be supported for 20 years at a reasonable cost by a country without a big aviation industry.