|
Post by hairy on Jun 20, 2010 20:49:10 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 20, 2010 22:09:24 GMT 12
Awesome find there Marcus, they are an interesting part of history.
Did the RNZAF seriously consider purchasing Hornets? Obviously McDonnell Douglas was courting them.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jun 21, 2010 7:45:44 GMT 12
Wow an interesting piece of history there!
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Jul 4, 2010 11:38:46 GMT 12
those are fantastic, pity about the decals.
I dont suppose you could be convinced to part with them for a slightly larger sum.....?
|
|
|
Post by johnhoward on Jul 7, 2010 20:51:24 GMT 12
If a country is willing to launch an all out invasion of NZ (which is NOT going to happen), then having a very small fleet of old F-16s is not much of a 'deterence' like many have suggested. Let the RAAF and USN provide the air power, while the NZDF sorts out its priorities, and right now an ACF is not one.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jul 7, 2010 22:08:23 GMT 12
I totally disagree with your shallow logic Mr Howard. The F-16s were a replacement for the A-4s (in 1999 NZDF output terms) and performed an important role for the NZDF - one that was HIGHLY valued by our allies in Australia and SE Asia. The RNZAF ACF was widely acknowledged as the best in the southern hemisphere (and arguably beyond) in the Maritime Strike role.
The F-16s would have performed the same roles as the A-4s did, but would have done them a hell of a lot better. Had the original deal gone through, by now we would have upgraded them with the latest avionics and weapons systems, so they would still have be a very credible (and deployable) NZDF force element, had Helen Clark & Co not done the unthinkable.
The only thing you say that I agree with is there is currently no direct threat to NZ (but that doesn't mean there won't be one in the future). The NZDF's combat capability exists (and has always) to protect NZs interests overseas as part of a coalition of like minded nations. We have never had the ability to go it alone. The A-4s/F-16s could have been used in the Gulf War (1991), East Timor (1999), and Iraq and Afghanistan (2001 - current). Political conservatism was the only reason they weren't "used".
The cost of maintaining the ACF was very modest in the overall context of things (% of GDP and Government spending). In terms of bang for you buck they provided the best value for the lowest risk.
If you have any further questions or don't understand what I am saying here please ask.
|
|
|
Post by johnhoward on Jul 8, 2010 0:33:48 GMT 12
I highly dought that the RNZAF would have deployed aircraft in Desert Storm, East Timor? or Iraq and Afghanistan. Only a small fleet of Hornets from the 75th SQD based at Tindal were deployed to the middle east a few years ago, so I dought that NZ would of deployed any. (Seems as though the NZDF is more of a 'peacekeeping force').
And plus, where do you draw the line? If NZ did aquire the F-16s, what would you replace them with? With all these complaints about the F-35s costing too much, what would NZ replace their F-16s with? By the sounds of it most NZers dont want to spend any more money on defence, so where would you expect the money to operate a fleet of 5th gen aircraft come from? The cost of aquiring say 20-25 5th gen aircraft (what else is avaliable?) would be tens of billions, far far far more then what the current NZ government can (sadly) afford.
As much as I understand the sadness that it brought to the RNZAF by getting rid of the fast jets, I just cant see the RNZAF aquiring any fast jets in the near future, nor do I CURRENTLY see a threat to NZ in any way, other then asylum seekers (maritime patrol).
I have also seen many people that have suggested a combined RAAF-RNZAF fast jet sqd. Wow, really? Your dreaming. This may have limited advantages, but really? If NZ wants a fighter force, they can do it themselves. Dont drag us into it.
I may come across as very abrubt and ignorant (I apologize if I do), but these are my views. Any war NZ is in your big brother will be too.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jul 8, 2010 7:59:25 GMT 12
I highly dought that the RNZAF would have deployed aircraft in Desert Storm, East Timor? or Iraq and Afghanistan. You are totally wrong there buddy. Our A-4s were seriously considered for Desert Storm (the closest they got to going to a real shooting war) and were on standby for East Timor. RAAF fast jets were fully armed and in the air providing cover for the East Timor operation. If it had gotten nasty there would have been 14 RNZAF A-4s there in a flash (8 from 75 Squadron who were in Malaysia and 6 from 2 Squadron at Nowra). The RNZAF air combat force was highly integrated with the RAAF. I suggest you do some reading - start with "Topped Gun" by Ross Ewing. Later this year another book titled "Alpha Four Kilo" will be published - I highly recommend you read it as well when it comes out.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Jul 8, 2010 9:00:44 GMT 12
Good grief johnhoward .... ever heard of collective defence? That's where countries like NZ (and Australia) could never fight off an invasion of their homelands so they contribute elements (eg NZ A4's or F16's) to a larger force ie the US's.
For NZ a token sqn of A4's or F16's ensure the US & Aust see NZ as contributing to the larger effort.
You also totally ignore the reality that defence of NZ and Aust is not the critical issue ... it is to project power and deter i.e. take out any invaders hundreds of miles away from the coasts.
In your eyes if NZ doesn't need strike aircraft then why does Aust? How will ever invade Aust?
The other reason for such aircraft is to contribute to regional stability eg SE Asia. SE Asia on the whole is largely stable, thank goodness for that in terms of economic trade, industrial development and tourism etc, I'm sure you'd agree the last thing NZ and Aust would have wanted is decades of conflict in SE Asia tying up the defence forces of NZ and Aust and the subsequent costs to the economy (money diverted to the armed forces and away from other Govt areas such as health and education etc).
As for the costs of 5th generation aircraft, what are you on about? the F16's would have served into the 2020's and if you read up about the F35 and its variants, the costs of such aircraft are actually said to decline once they enter production .... in fact that's what you are seeing now, nations holding off full F35 acquisitions until the product is finalised and thus delaying the remaining orders until the later part of the 2010's etc.
You also need to realise that the NZDF is being deployed into theatres that include allied nations using strike jets hence it is part and parcel of our Afghanistan contribution, even the Provincial Reconstruction Team, to be verse with calling in fast air for CAS etc. In order to do so effectively means NZDF needs to be training with jets in NZ ... trouble is we don't have any and it is another burden for the RAAF to come over here and do this for us. We have the RAAF F18's here this year ... the frist time since 1998 ... which means the RAAF does not have the time and capacity to help us (if this was seen as an easy option to take etc)!
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Jul 8, 2010 9:02:04 GMT 12
And plus, where do you draw the line? If NZ did aquire the F-16s, what would you replace them with? With all these complaints about the F-35s costing too much, what would NZ replace their F-16s with? By the sounds of it most NZers dont want to spend any more money on defence, so where would you expect the money to operate a fleet of 5th gen aircraft come from? The cost of aquiring say 20-25 5th gen aircraft (what else is avaliable?) would be tens of billions, far far far more then what the current NZ government can (sadly) afford. OK lets make some assumptions. The NZ govt decided in 2000 that an Air Combat Wing is a good idea to retain and maintain, and that budget for fleet replacement at a reasonable timeframe were put in place. My guess under those conditions would be that our F16s would be replaced by a multirole airframe suitably small yet updated like JAS Gripen 39E/F, or a larger Gen 4.5 type like F/A-18E/F, Rafale or Eurofighter, although this would be unlikely unless we did a deal with Aussie to obtain their Super Hornets once their Lightning 2's arrive. As for whether we can afford them, that's absolute rubbish. Our GDP is high enough to do it if the Govt decided it is worth doing. There are threads all over this forum comparing govt expenditure on Social Welfare, Health and Education to Defense and their respective budgets dwarf Defense's. All we can do is marvel at what our Armed Services achieve with so little money and speculate at what they could achieve given a resourcing level similar to other developed countries.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 8, 2010 10:22:14 GMT 12
As Don says, No. 75 Squadron very nearly went to Desert Storm. The whole deployment was organised, the squadron members had had their jabs and stabs, the lot. Then Palmer's government flip-flopped and sent No. 40 Squadron instead.
One post johnhoward says to leave NZ's defence to Australia and the USA, and in the next he says about an ANZAC fighter plan "If NZ wants a fighter force, they can do it themselves. Dont drag us into it."
It should be pointed out that the Air Combat Wing provided a variety of different roles to NZ's defence and well being. They were not just there to sit and wait for an invasion.
Plus, surely having something to defend with is better than having nothing when the foreign hoardes start invading your beaches.
|
|
|
Post by johnhoward on Jul 8, 2010 10:40:54 GMT 12
Ok, so lets say that if a country is going to mount a full invasion of NZ, the size of that force must be EXTREMELY huge. Do you really think that having 20 or so fighter aircraft is going to act as a deterence? Would these aircraft assist in a coalition force comprising of USN and RAAF aircraft? Yes. But the possibility of these aircraft acting as a 'deterence' like many speak of is ridiculous.
Nige, what are you on about? Aquiring 5th gen aircraft is not as cheap as what you think. Every year that they are delayed, they will get more and more expensive. Right now an F-35 is costing well over $100 million a piece. And that price isnt going to drop anytime soon. You seem to underestimate just how difficult and expensive it is to aquire and maintain a fleet of aircraft. And please stop with the childish "why does aust need strike aircraft". You and I know exactly why, so stop with that nonsense.
Skyhawkdon. What is your point? Like I said, the RNZAF never did deploy aircraft to Desert Storm or East Timor did they? So how am I "totally wrong"? That doesnt make any sense mate, so why dont you rephrase that to "your totally right". Theres a difference between actually being there, and then on standby to go. You dont seem to understand the difference.
Dave Homewood. Ive got no problems in NZ aquiring fighter aircraft, though if they want to, quite simply do it yourselves. I was trying to say that IF NZ needed air defence and they dont have the fighters to provide this, Australia will always assist. But IF NZ wanted to obtain an ACF, they are going to have to stand on their own two feet and try to do it themselves. I do agree that NZ should eventually obtain an ACF again, but as of now I think they have other priorities that they should sort out.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Jul 8, 2010 12:44:41 GMT 12
Ok, so lets say that if a country is going to mount a full invasion of NZ, the size of that force must be EXTREMELY huge. Do you really think that having 20 or so fighter aircraft is going to act as a deterence? Would these aircraft assist in a coalition force comprising of USN and RAAF aircraft? Yes. But the possibility of these aircraft acting as a 'deterence' like many speak of is ridiculous. Nige, what are you on about? Aquiring 5th gen aircraft is not as cheap as what you think. Every year that they are delayed, they will get more and more expensive. Right now an F-35 is costing well over $100 million a piece. And that price isnt going to drop anytime soon. You seem to underestimate just how difficult and expensive it is to aquire and maintain a fleet of aircraft. And please stop with the childish "why does aust need strike aircraft". You and I know exactly why, so stop with that nonsense. Re first point, We accept no massive invasion force is going to invade NZ, but you ignore the other reasons for NZ having F16's or whatever. I'm not going to repeat myself on these other reasons, thanks. Re second point, what are you on about? We all know, including you, that 5th gen aircraft are in development (bar F22), so of course costs are very high as this new technology is developed. Especially at the moment. But IF and when the F35 matures (esp the F35A, which is what Aust is buying), which is in the next few years, and assuming those nations then comitt to ordering the F35A (Aust has made an intial order of 14 out of an earlier indicated figure of 75-100 approx dependant on the F/A18F in the mix) then costs should reduce. www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/likely-f-35-unit-cost-still-below-60-million-says-lockheed-martin-25170/www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/06/18/01.xml&headline=Lockheed:%20F-35%20Can%20Compete%20On%20CostBut hey let's not bog this thread down with the debate on 5th generation aircraft. NZ isn't buying them, and NZ never would anyway even if it were going to spend $$$ on jets again. We're not at the top of the table, we don't need 5th gen aircraft at this point in time. Granted I share concerns, as you must do, about the F35's costs, but this is not relevant to NZ ever acquiring jets again to train the Army in FAC/JTAC functions, the RNZN against opposing fast air or air defence of NZ against air-terrorist threats. Anything from the existing Macchi, to ideally F16's or the new T/A50 will mostly/completely fulfill these functions for the NZDF depending on what is spent. Until we undertake these baby steps NZ will not be able to afford to regenerate a functioning air combat force and all the assocated support costs as you allude to, let alone 5th gen aircraft - that will never happen.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Jul 8, 2010 12:54:44 GMT 12
And please stop with the childish "why does aust need strike aircraft". You and I know exactly why, so stop with that nonsense. Childish? You tell me! Who's going to invade Australia? Indonesia with their 6 or so Hawks? I'd suggest the Collins subs and the RAAF's AP-3C's equipped with Harpoon would deter or attack any sea invasion. As for an air invasion, the ADF has SAM's - plus radars. Who would get thru and if they did, what then? The air threat couldn't be backed by by sea forces and any opposing cargo transports dropping para's wouldn't last long in another country without support and supplies. So you tell me why Aust needs jets. Certainly not to deter an invasion. Could it be for the same reasons as NZ? Force projection and collective defence perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by yak2 on Jul 8, 2010 13:28:31 GMT 12
I think you should stop wasting our time here John Howard and go and find another forum to winge on. You have no idea what you are talking about. Not much of a welcome to a young guy new to this forum He is certainly not the first to post some outspoken ideas or touched a nerve. So why pick on him?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 8, 2010 14:31:29 GMT 12
A fair point Rob. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, just as everyone is entitled to disagree with that opinion and to debate it freely. But let's keep it civil please. Maybe this new member will have something to offer the forum, even if not on this particular subject.
Welcome John Howard. You've dipped into a topic here that is very staunchly close to many hearts and it is natural that they will be a little defensive towards an oposing view. Not all the threads here are so fiery.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jul 8, 2010 15:10:48 GMT 12
Having an opinion is one thing, but if you don't know what you are talking about then best to shut up! Perhaps "John" can enlighten us on what qualifies him to be an expert on this subject?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 8, 2010 16:08:24 GMT 12
True.
|
|
|
Post by johnhoward on Jul 8, 2010 17:05:09 GMT 12
And please stop with the childish "why does aust need strike aircraft". You and I know exactly why, so stop with that nonsense. Childish? You tell me! Who's going to invade Australia? Indonesia with their 6 or so Hawks? I'd suggest the Collins subs and the RAAF's AP-3C's equipped with Harpoon would deter or attack any sea invasion. As for an air invasion, the ADF has SAM's - plus radars. Who would get thru and if they did, what then? The air threat couldn't be backed by by sea forces and any opposing cargo transports dropping para's wouldn't last long in another country without support and supplies. So you tell me why Aust needs jets. Certainly not to deter an invasion. Could it be for the same reasons as NZ? Force projection and collective defence perhaps? 6 or so hawks? Try a combination of around 60 Sukhois, F-16s, F-5s, Hawks and EMB 314s.
|
|
|
Post by johnhoward on Jul 8, 2010 17:15:23 GMT 12
I think you should stop wasting our time here John Howard and go and find another forum to winge on. You have no idea what you are talking about. When did I ever come across as rude? Because that statement to me makes you come across as a person who cant stand hearing someone elses opinion. I respect that you, and others have very different opinions on this subject to me. I know how much is angered the RNZAF about the disbanding of the ACF, but never, did I come across as rude as you just did. If this forum is full of people like you, Id rather leave then stay.
|
|