What if New Zealand acquired a fleet of fast jet combat air craft circa 2000

I figured I would start a new thread to discuss what might have happened had New Zealand acquired a fleet of perhaps two dozen fast jets around the turn of the century (perhaps the F16`s that had been originally intended for Pakistan.) For the sake of argument I am going to assume the New Zealand Government largely cut funding for the Army to pay for this and this project was done as cheaply as possible while still retaining the ability to actually deploy a modest number (say 6 to 8 ?) of air craft overseas that can actually drop bombs in missions such as the ones flown over Libya circa 2011 by NATO and have at least some ability to defend themselves against air threats.

Does New Zealand deploy them in the same way that Canada for example has deployed their F18 force in overseas attack missions ? (I am thinking that if in practice the New Zealand fast jet force didn't have a home land defense mission they could probably deploy overseas more or less the same number of air craft that Canada typically has since the turn of the century ?)

Does New Zealand decide to build a domestic air defense system post 9/11 ?

Does New Zealand dispose of them and refocus on other defense needs ? If so when might this happen ?

Does the electorate simply vote out of office at the next election cycle any government that either acquired a fleet of fast jet combat aircraft circa 2000 and or actually deployed them to fly missions such as the missions flown over Libya circa 2011 ? Would these have been likely election issues ?

I picked the Libya missions as an example of what New Zealand might have decided to do had they had the ability to do so. It appears the New Zealand government of the day seemed ok with other nations flying these types of missions.

Edit to add: I tried to post a URL to a news article outlining the support of the New Zealand Government for the allied missions over Libya circa 2011. I did not appear as I expected it would so I deleted it.

Any other thoughts ?
 
Last edited:
The concept of operations for the RNZAF F16s was to deploy them alongside RAAF F18s in a wing: the Hornets would do the air to air, anti ship and longer range work while the F16s would do Army support ground attack with their Mavericks, 500lb LGBs and dumb bombs, and be somewhat self escorting due to their air to air capability.

I doubt they do much actual fighting but might deploy to Australia a fair bit as the RAAF goes to the Mid East.
 
The concept of operations for the RNZAF F16s was to deploy them alongside RAAF F18s in a wing: the Hornets would do the air to air, anti ship and longer range work while the F16s would do Army support ground attack with their Mavericks, 500lb LGBs and dumb bombs, and be somewhat self escorting due to their air to air capability.

I doubt they do much actual fighting but might deploy to Australia a fair bit as the RAAF goes to the Mid East.
Interesting thanks. I am wondering if New Zealand having the means to have participated in operations such as the air strikes flown over Libya circa 2011, would have resulted in New Zealand actually flying such missions. Conversely I am thinking that if New Zealand had actually acquired fast jets circa 2000 and never actually deployed them out side of Australia / New Zealand and or in a combat role, at some point there might have been a desire to simply not have them any more (especially if the SAS and presumably other Army units were actually deployed over seas although shifting funds from the Army to the Airforce might butterfly away the ability of the Army to do this.)
 
Last edited:
Interesting thanks. I am wondering if New Zealand having the means to have participated in operations such as the air strikes flown over Libya circa 2011, would have resulted in New Zealand actually flying such missions. Conversely I am thinking that if New Zealand had actually acquired fast jets circa 2000 and never actually deployed them out side of Australia / New Zealand and or in a combat role, at some point there might have been a desire to simply not have them any more (especially if the SAS and presumably other Army units were actually deployed over seas although shifting funds from the Army to the Airforce might butterfly away the ability of the Army to do this.)
I was going to ask, what deployments were made by the Army between 2000 and 2011 that might have been impacted? Would the RNZN Canterbury not be bought in the mid 00's if the Army was of smaller?
 
It is as I said in the original thread - you need to work on the political POD. Labour under Clark are not going to renew this. The planes need to be at a point that it is more cost/effort to cancel by about September 1999.
 
I figured I would start a new thread to discuss what might have happened had New Zealand acquired a fleet of perhaps two dozen fast jets around the turn of the century (perhaps the F16`s that had been originally intended for Pakistan.) For the sake of argument I am going to assume the New Zealand Government largely cut funding for the Army to pay for this and this project was done as cheaply as possible while still retaining the ability to actually deploy a modest number (say 6 to 8 ?) of air craft overseas that can actually drop bombs in missions such as the ones flown over Libya circa 2011 by NATO and have at least some ability to defend themselves against air threats.

Does New Zealand deploy them in the same way that Canada for example has deployed their F18 force in overseas attack missions ? (I am thinking that if in practice the New Zealand fast jet force didn't have a home land defense mission they could probably deploy overseas more or less the same number of air craft that Canada typically has since the turn of the century ?)
The Skyhawks regularly deployed to Australia and Southeast Asia, with one squadron fulltime based in Australia from 1991 to 2001 - the homeland defense mission wasn't as big a thing as training to operate with allies overseas. The F-16's would have continued this role.

Does New Zealand decide to build a domestic air defense system post 9/11 ?
Unlikely, for cost and probable risk reasons

Does New Zealand dispose of them and refocus on other defense needs ? If so when might this happen ?
Unlikely in a post 9/11 world. The actual decision to axe the ACF was met with indifference rather than popular support, and a good deal of opposition.

Does the electorate simply vote out of office at the next election cycle any government that either acquired a fleet of fast jet combat aircraft circa 2000 and or actually deployed them to fly missions such as the missions flown over Libya circa 2011 ? Would these have been likely election issues ?
Defence isn't a big election topic in NZ, so unlikely.
 
The concept of operations for the RNZAF F16s was to deploy them alongside RAAF F18s in a wing: the Hornets would do the air to air, anti ship and longer range work while the F16s would do Army support ground attack with their Mavericks, 500lb LGBs and dumb bombs, and be somewhat self escorting due to their air to air capability.

I doubt they do much actual fighting but might deploy to Australia a fair bit as the RAAF goes to the Mid East.
2Sqn would also have remained at Nowra for RAN fleet support and to act as the RNZAF F-16 OCU.
 
I was going to ask, what deployments were made by the Army between 2000 and 2011 that might have been impacted? Would the RNZN Canterbury not be bought in the mid 00's if the Army was of smaller?
Re the Army. I am thinking maybe the Army doesn't get LAV's ? So any deployment involving LAV's probably won't happen ?
 
Re the Army. I am thinking maybe the Army doesn't get LAV's ? So any deployment involving LAV's probably won't happen ?
More likely they get LAVs, but in reduced numbers. There are a lot of stories, possibly apocryphal, about the number of LAVs acquired vs how much were actually required.
 
F-5 Freedom Fighters?
They looks like they fit the bill.
As much as I like the F5 as an option for a basic "keep fast jet skills alive and have a notional daytime cap capability (and maybe night time intercept capability vs airliners capability)" I don't see it being a viable strike aircraft vis a vis flying against a reasonably capable enemy. I doubt New Zealand would have acquired them.

Edit to add at various times both Canada and Switzerland (and probably other nations) seem to have had used F5's for sale.
 
Last edited:
F-5 Freedom Fighters?
They looks like they fit the bill.
As much as I like the F5 as an option for a basic "keep fast jet skills alive and have a notional daytime cap capability (and maybe night time intercept capability vs airliners capability" I don't see it being a via)ble strike aircraft vis a vis flying against a reasonably capable enemy. I doubt New Zealand would have acquired them.
OTOH, modern, capable fighters cost an arm and a leg, not only to buy, but to sustain.
F5s might be one of those horrible compromises that governments make.
 
Maybe the more modern F-20 Tigershark?
I seem to recall that aircraft being discussed the popular press in New Zealand. The problem is that it was never actually sold. I doubt an order from New Zealand would have been large enough for the air craft to go into production ?
 
I seem to recall that aircraft being discussed the popular press in New Zealand. The problem is that it was never actually sold. I doubt an order from New Zealand would have been large enough for the air craft to go into production ?
Ninja'd, but yeah I can't see how any order that NZ would make would be able to justify such a production run.
 
Basically, the only plane NZ can get is the F-5 due to its cost ($2.1 million) and its ease of maintenance.
Anything else will cost way too much.
Upgrades can probably get it flying till the 2010s.
heck, CF-18s from the 1990s are still going
I hear a couple of them roaring above my house every now and then
 
Basically, the only plane NZ can get is the F-5 due to its cost ($2.1 million) and its ease of maintenance.
Anything else will cost way too much.
Upgrades can probably get it flying till the 2010s.
heck, CF-18s from the 1990s are still going
I hear a couple of them roaring above my house every now and then
Weren't those F-16's basically being given away by the US or at least attempted to be? Would the more modern systems of the 16 make it cheaper long run to sustain if New Zealand went for them?
 
Weren't those F-16's basically being given away by the US or at least attempted to be? Would the more modern systems of the 16 make it cheaper long run to sustain if New Zealand went for them?
Well the Canadian F5's had been modernized (although I don't believe they had radar) and I recall some discussion of the F16's that were intended for Pakistan likely needing some form of modernization as well at some point.

Like I said in a prior thread buying the Canadian F5's (that ultimately went to Botswana IIRC) might have been an option if the main goal was simply to keep fast jet skills alive and perhaps have a notional day time only air to to air capability.

To recap a prior post I believe the Canadian F5's had also been upgraded to serve as fighter lead in trainers for their F18 force so the govt might have been able to claim they could perhaps acquire F18's later (and maybe the Canadians could have given New Zealand an option to buy used F18's later.) I doubt any of this would actually have happened.
 
Top