Canada converts Australian F-18s

New Zealand doesn't need any Fighters. Purchasing such for a country with it's closest neighbour 2000 km away, is an utter and total waste of time and money. Money that could be better spent on a myriad of other real needs. BTW, the fighters Australia tried to sell to NZ last time, didn't make it there and back...

How do I know this; because they "stopped over" on Norfolk Island... of the three; one broke down on the way out, one broke down in Kiwi, and the last one didn't leave Norfolk on schedule either...

RNZAF focuses on maritime patrols, and transport. It's not like any country of less than 5 million people is going to own the skies over their head if any of the nations capable of extending fighter airpower into the Southern Pacific Ocean wants to (And Australia, at over 2000km away, isn't one of them...). So why waste money on National Ego-stroking idiocy? There are many other capabilities that are far more important to maintain.

 

That reads like isolationism.

Having some air combat capability, even if modest, is better than none. A core of current expertise, if expansion ever becomes necessary, should be considered like any other insurance policy. The world can change quickly and it's dangerous to think that political allies will do anything more than act in their own interests.

 

It is not "isolationism", it is political reality. New Zealand has not had air combat capability since 2001, when their A-4 Skyhawks were retired, and not replaced. Since, from 2001 to the present day, there has been no pressing need for air combat capability.

There would be very few reasons that New Zealand would need air combat capability. It is facing threats from aircraft carriers or an attack that would require several air tanker hookups to complete. Carriers are few and far between, and a complex mission requiring air tankers is just as unlikely. Either way, if New Zelands prospect enemy can do either, then New Zealand is already in a far greater world of hurt than would satisfied with a few modern fighters.

However, the strategic landscape is changing, and with China having it's first carrier, working up a second, two more under construction, and beginning the pre-production process for building two nuclear carriers. New Zealand's current thinking could very well change in the next 5 to 10 years. But, as it is right now, NZ remains focused on maritime patrol with the prospective acquisition of Boeing's P-8 Poseidon..

 

A threat always seems far away until it appears with no warning.

New Zealand has lost credibility as team player in regional defence plans. Emphasis on social issues and absence of recent war has turned them into a nation of pacifists. A change in perception about their place in world does not make the Kiwis divorced from global security.

Retirement of the A-4 Kahu Skyhawks - and a suitable replacement - has also weakened what remains of the New Zealand surface fleet. When sought for advice about the value of maritime air power, the Navy replied that the air combat force provided valuable support for ship-borne sensors and weapons could be properly tested only by fast combat jets. The Navy needs to train as it means to fight.

Computer simulation is helpful, but nothing awakens a sense of urgency like seeing real death machines in action.

Without a full sample of challenging exercise environment - covering all aspects of maritime warfare - ships from other navies are less able to co-operate effectively. Thirty years ago RNZAF striking power was small, but still respected for capability. Today they have gone off the map of international affairs.

The following article was in a 1992 edition of Aviation News:

 

Problem is that modern combat aircraft are more offensive than defensive. Further, the "threat" must not only be perceived, but planned for...All of those modern combat aircraft mattered not a whit on 9/11...They might as well have been stationed on the moon. But, then again, what similar targets to the Twin Towers are located in New Zealand?

How many times have Russian strategic bombers threatened NZ airspace?

Would 20 or so modern combat fighters make a difference anywhere?

Regretfully, the Kiwis are not "divorced" from global security, however, providing humanitarian aid to natural disasters around the Pacific Rim takes up a good deal more of their time and effort.

Seriously? That problem could be easily solved with a handful of cheap supersonic trainer aircraft or drones. Not to mention that the entire air defense of the New Zealand Navy centers on their two frigates which are equipped with the short ranged ESSM in a Mk 41 8-cell VLS. These are point defense missiles that are to shoot down incoming cruise missiles. The ESSM range is too short to engage the aircraft themselves before they can launch their cruise missiles. What it does teach the navy too look for is the brief aircraft pop-up and target acquisition radar signals, and this can be done by most aircraft with a search radar.

Huh? These aircraft would launch BVR. So, your Navy would never see them at all.

The New Zealand Navy has participated in the War on Terror, and RIMPACs 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018. They have participated quite effectively.
Royal New Zealand Navy — RIMPAC Top Gun

Hardly...
New Zealand to Upgrade Anti-Submarine Warfare Capability
They are doing what they do best. Maritime Patrol.

 

I think its a week argument Takao...

"Problem is that modern combat aircraft are more offensive than defensive. Further, the "threat" must not only be perceived, but planned for...All of those modern combat aircraft mattered not a whit on 9/11...They might as well have been stationed on the moon. But, then again, what similar targets to the Twin Towers are located in New Zealand?
How many times have Russian strategic bombers threatened NZ airspace?
Would 20 or so modern combat fighters make a difference anywhere?"

- Offensive/defensive depends on policy and ordnance, not the aircraft.
- The threat doesn't lie with Europe or Russia - Although you might remember a Russian navy show of strength in the pacific not long ago...just a message for Australia and NZ. No, it lies with Asia to our north...Indonesia and Malaysia to name just two. There has always been a perceived threat from these northern countries and the bulk of Australia's defence planning has been to counter these threats. At the heart of Australia's defence plan is to sink as many ships as possible before they reach Australian shores...this SHOULD be NZs plan also...one needs a quality navy (especially subs) and especially fast jets to get anti shipping weapons close enough to the target for this plan to possibly work. Your 911 reference is a red herring...its not the threat a defence force is assembled for.
20 advance jets could make a huge difference if you are trying to intercept shipping and bombers...especially if we are talking the capabilities of the F-35.


2. "Regretfully, the Kiwis are not "divorced" from global security, however, providing humanitarian aid to natural disasters around the Pacific Rim takes up a good deal more of their time and effort."

- This doesn't answer the comment about not being a team member, yet no doubt expecting Australia and the US coming to their aid if attacked. EKBs pacifist comment is pretty close the bone for NZ...they wont even allow US assets into NZ if they suspect it could be carrying nuclear weapons (so no B-52s or B-2s) even Aircraft carriers aren't allowed in (from memory) as they are nuclear powered...now I like their thinking, but is it realistic or a great example of isolationism?

3."Hardly...
New Zealand to Upgrade Anti-Submarine Warfare Capability
They are doing what they do best. Maritime Patrol."

- That doesnt answer the statement that RNZAF has no strike power...A defence plan is more than one part of one arm...


As I see it, arguing against EKB is arguing against current thinking globally on national defence...
The NZ defence force has cherry picked its capability...and that is no defence. Its a convenient out from important national defence...To say its too far away or who would want to invade it anyway is ignoring history and quite frankly, sound military thinking. Its irresponsible.

What price does one put on national security? The US puts the HIGHEST price on defence of anyone in the world...NZ wishes war wouldn't happen...wishing wont make anything come true.

 

This is akin to saying that one might as well leave doors unlocked, because criminal trespassing has declined in recent years. Predators tend to follow the path of least resistance so, yes, appearances and basic security measures do make a difference.

As it does with the Red Cross, CARE and UNICEF. I thought we were talking about firepower.

Historically, BVR missile firing is a better idea than actual event. Rules of engagement will continue to be hindered by heavy restrictions, as the record shows, because mis-identification of targets has led to numerous disasters.

 

If it wasn't trumpeting before, it is now!

 

New Zealand's nearest neighbour, an supposedly "allied" country, is 2000 km away. The world is not changing that fast; Indonesia (7,500km) is moving south, at about 3-4 mm per year, but it'll be a few eons yet before Kiwis have to panic.

New Zealand, and her allies are far better served by NZ complementing their assets, and monitoring her obligations, rather than big budget spending on a few line items of extremely limited value, such as fighter aircraft. The lifetime cost of one modern fighter aircraft far exceeds that of even a large contingent of men. With an operating 30,000 USD / hour of flight for the F35, for example, means NZ couldn't afford to do anything, but let the aircraft rust away on the tarmac. Bigger nations have the luxury of massive populations and large tax bases, and squander their resources as best they like.

Some capabilities in this modern world is useless; as is shown by Iraq; they had one of the largest Air forces in the Middle East prior to the First Iraqi War; how much good did it do Hussein? Last jets NZ had were 24 A-4's (not really fighters), and even if they had been replaced with the 24 F-16's as intended in 2000, they still wouldn't be a match for two type 002 Chinese aircraft carriers in 2030... with 40 modern jets each. Or a US carrier fleet. No one else is going to go poking around NZ.

If anything modern war, shows that small nations cannot compete in the air against any significantly larger nation. UAV's are a much more interesting line of development, than hot-jocks massaging their egos.

New Zealand has no immediate competitor, even in it's distant vicinity. NZ armed forces have contributed in other meaningful ways to security in the region and the world. Just because you don't want to see it, does mean that it is not so.

 

I'm always skeptical of the "a nation's just gotta have ________" rationale. Defense policy needs to be based on realistic assessment of the nation's needs and capabilities and the overall geopolitical situation.

 

No matter where you live, what you say is a typical excuse of elected officials in attempt to justify shifting money from armed forces to social or pet projects aimed at buying votes. It certainly is not the result of enlightenment or altrusim, as they want everyone to believe.

And, civilian organizations have a better track record in humanitarian missions. Putting soldiers on foreign soil in non-combat roles is largely a publicity stunt.

If only it were true!

North Vietnam's air force was highly competitive in its war against the United States. The outcome literally changed the way that the USAF fights. In the decades that followed F-14s, F-15s, F-16s and F-18s were consistently defeated in practice combats by U.S. and NATO pilots flying low-cost, low-tech Northrup F-5s.

You’re confusing ability of pilots versus type and quantity of aircraft.

Having the latest and greatest machine is not a requirement of worthy adversaries. Appropriate training, learning the best battle drills for various situations, knowing the limits of equipment, and making the best use of resources is more important than technological change.

 

What a lot of tripe;

1) Peace-keeping missions are not publicity stunts...
2) You realise the Vietnam war was 50 years ago? Are you espousing the use of the same technology, experiences and lessons of WW1 to Vietnam, and expecting the same result? There is no small country air force that can do against any of the large powers; their wealth leverages a vast gap in technology, experience & training. Iraqi pilots were experienced from the 10 year long war with Iran... didn't help.
3) Neither Yugoslavia's inheritor Serbia, nor Iraq could hold a candle to a small portion of US airpower. It is ludicrous to expect small countries to even attempt to do so. You are happily glossing over the aggressor squadrons use of RoE to limit and hinder the abilities of superior aircraft. Never mind that smaller countries cannot afford to provide experience and training for their pilots to that degree either.

I'll happily wager you, that no one invades NZ in the next 50 years; there is no need for a single f-35 at 100 million USD initial cost, and further costs for maintenance and support. They are just stupid waste of taxpayer money, that NZ armed forces do not need.

 

Of course it is...Bald Eagle FAIL.

 

Week, as in it will take you a week to conjure an adequate response?

Mostly it depends on the mission, which, to an extent is set by policy. Ordnance is usually neither defensive nor offensive in nature, it is intended to destroy it's target whatever that may be. Modern combat aircraft tend to be more offensive rather than defensive in nature.

Actually, I would think the threat lay with China, Russia was only a recent example. Malaysia and Indonesia, though are local threats to Australia, but not necessarily New Zealand. AFAIK the navies and air forces of both countries present a negligible threat to NZ - as they lack the ability to mostly project their power, but are more local, and "real" for Australia.

Well, Malaysia has no C&C/AWACS/Maritime patrol aircraft worthy of the name, so command & control of an attack will be difficult at best. Although they are planning on acquiring some in the future. Indonesia is a different story, with 3 Boeing 737-200A Survieller aircraft, 3 CN-235 Persuaders, and several smaller aircraft for C&C/AWACS/maritime patrol. However, the Indonesians seem to have the less capable navy, in terms of anti-air capability.

As to anti-shipping weapons of the defender, most of the cruise missiles have ranges in excess of those navies capability to shoot down the aircraft carrying said missiles.

Further, I believe that the P-3K2 Orions have the capability of carrying said anti-shipping missiles, as well as most of NZs helicopter fleet.

No, it is not a red herring...Yes, yes it is a threat the defense force was assembled for...The US had plans in place for such an attack...However, the threat was expected to come from foreign flagged airliners, not domestic ones - and that is where their plan for such an event fell apart.

You have yet to establish a credible reason for NZ to purchase 20 F-35s - The only reason you have basically given for such a purchase is so that NZ can "hang with the big boys". Especially, with EKB's rambling on about how proficient they F-5 was at shooting down more modern US aircraft.

I have commented on their being a team member, their maritime patrol aircraft & navy have both been participating in joint exercises, as well as ongoing operations.

What's your point? So, they cannot land there...Where do you think a B-2 is going to land first - In NZ on Guam? For that matter, if a war does go hot in the Pacific, can you say with 100% certainty that a B-2 or B-52 will not land in NZ? Of course, that will depend on the capability of their runways being able to handle the large heavy aircraft.

Aircraft carriers tend to operate for months at a time at sea, I highly doubt that one would need to dock at New Zealand. For that matter, are NZ harbor's capable of handling and docking a Nimitz or Ford class carrier, or would they be limited to anchoring in the roadstead?

Realistic...But, all other nations must want it to be so. Pakistan has the Bomb for the express reason that India has the Bomb.

New Zealand has no strike power?
Bombs away on that one

EKB is arguing because New Zealand is not bombing some defenseless nation...And that makes him unhappy. As I have said earlier, NZ has not had air combat capability for almost 20 years. Yet, somehow this fact has eluded him until recently, and now he wants to beef about it.

And what are these "important national defense" imperatives that face New Zealand?

Seems that NZ has a slightly different viewpoint than yours.
Yes, New Zealand is hard to invade. But experts say there are 'many subtle ways to attack a country'

See the article linked to above.

The US can afford to, but more to the point, the US defends it's own interests around the world.

The US has the most powerful military in the world...That has not stopped wars from happening either...As a matter of fact, it has created some.

 

I have some friends that do leave there doors unlocked...Of course, they live out in the middle of nowhere. Besides, I can trespass on your property whether or not your doors are locked.

Predators tend to follow the path of least resistance? They also tend to pick targets of value, and there is little to no value in attacking New Zealand. What's the point in going to all the time and effort if you are not going to get anything worthwhile out of such an operation.

Yes, appearances do matter...Hence, NZ makes it's appearance out to be a target of no value. Besides, it has taken the basic security measures.

Not all battles are fought with weapons my friend...Hearts and Minds...Hearts and Minds. If those around you do not feel threatened by you, they, of course, will not attack you. It is only after you become a "threat", that you become a "target." You fail to grasp this fact.

And yet, mis-identifications still happen on a frequent basis. Besides, this mostly applies to SAMs rather than SSMs. SSMs are still mostly fired BVR.

 

Here in the States, that knife cuts both ways EKB. Look at all the infighting over base closures and what and where military projects are assigned to be produced. It is all political my friend.

Some are and some aren't...But, in the main, they lack the ability and manpower to distribute and rebuild, that is usually where the military comes in. Not to mention that most NGO's lack the ability to perform SAR tasks.

Your joking right...

Have you read the "Red Baron"/CHECO reports?
The NVAF was successful not because it was "competitive," indeed, the lost most of their stand-up fights with the USAF. The NVAF was successful, because their pilots had ground-control radars guiding them to the target, whereas the USAF had no coverage. Thus, the NVAF pilots could bounce their targets and escape before the Americans could recover. The vast majority of successful VNAF intercepts(over 80%) came because their pilots were guided into an advantageous position to bounce the American aircraft. Without this guidance the Americans were almost always the victor from a neutral or advantageous position. "TEABALL" was the first development to correct this problem with control, with the final "key" being the advent of the E-3 Sentry AWACS to completely remove this gap. No longer would American aircraft be without fighter direction.

Seems that you are now arguing for low-tech less capable aircraft rather than the top-shelf aircraft...Which is it?

Has nothing to do with pilot quality or type of aircraft...It is tactics and strategy...Go after their Command-and-Control first, destroy that, and even the best pilots with the best fighters are left "deaf, dumb, and blind." Which is exactly what the US did in the Gulf Wars. This was the primary lesson they took away from Vietnam.

Which is all meaningless if you do not have Command & Control.

 

Yeah...ok.
Haven’t swayed me an inch...we will just have to agree to disagree mate.

 

This assumes that political leaders will behave rationally.

Argentina and the U.K. went to war over the Falkland Islands, which had a tiny population of 2,000 people. In 1981 the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was only £5 Million. I don't know much Argentina spent on the war and its aftermath, but the U.K. invested about £5 Billion from 1982 to 1993.

It was a pointless war because in the previous ten years British officials discussed various ways to cut ties with the Falklands, because the “colony” was not profitable. Adding to the silliness was the Nationality Act of 1981, which stripped away British citizenship from most of the Falklanders. Few people in the U.K. were aware of this embarrassing fact, which allowed Margaret Thatcher to sweep it under the rug until the Nationality Act was amended in 1983.

The truth is that Galtieri and Thatcher gambled on war because both suffered from poor popularity ratings.

By your logic, Argentina attacked the Falklands because they felt threatened by a little band of sheep farmers.

Well the British ignored their Chain Home advantage from 40 years earlier. They had no early warning radar aircraft in the Falklands. Often left blind without it, they lost many expensive ships. It wasn’t a wise choice to fight under those conditions, but they did prove it was possible to succeed in the air war with serious defects in the command and control system. The Sea Harrier pilots had better ACM training and more reliable missiles than their opponents.

Stand up fight? I didn’t know that anyone still used that quaint reference to knights and chivalry.

Sorry, but Vietnam was not a boxing match. Reality was not as simple as your potted summary. And by the way, USAF pilots did get radar coverage from ground stations and aircraft. Both sides used terrain and weather to mask signals.

I’ve never argued for the F-22, F-35, or Eurofighter. They are too expensive and so far cost has outweighed the benefits.

 

It's not just aggressor F-5 squadrons that scored victories against more advanced fighters. The point is, lower tech fighters were/are successful because there is no such thing as unrestricted BVR missile warfare. And there never will be. The possibility of hitting a friendly is not acceptable, and that is a great equalizer for the underdog.

 

Yeah, because we know there are competing claims on NZ...

Your position is untenable, and now you are just picking nits. Nothing of what you say changes New Zealand's reality; it is so far away from anything. The Falkland Islands, are merely 500 km away from Argentina, and that was a conflict that had been brewing for a while, and is still fermenting.

NZ, is not threatened by it's closest neighbour Australia (2,000 km away), French Polynesia, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Tonga or New Caledonia. New Zealand participates in multiple defence exercises and co-operates with her allies.

Now please tell me I'm completely ignoring the threats from Cthulhu in Ry'leh, and the Elder Things, Mi Go and Shoggoth in Antartica...