|
Post by snafu on Apr 18, 2018 9:52:54 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Apr 18, 2018 14:35:59 GMT 12
Makes the 10 year lease on 28 F-16's for NZ$13M a year (back in 1998) look pretty good doesn't it!
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Apr 18, 2018 17:19:41 GMT 12
Whilst i agree,i'm not sure if H2 would!. Aside from the less publicised cost of disbanding the ACF,that would have been close to that figure for the remaining 10+ years,effectively money for nothing.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 19, 2018 8:59:17 GMT 12
Makes the 10 year lease on 28 F-16's for NZ$13M a year (back in 1998) look pretty good doesn't it! Would have been great if the US actually owned the aircraft. Those were in fact were the property of Pakistan who had already paid Uncle Sam. We would have lost them anyway when the US needed Karachi after 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Apr 21, 2018 8:49:28 GMT 12
Pakistan got some of them in the end and were allowed to purchase other later model F-16s with the credit they were owed.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 22, 2018 18:33:56 GMT 12
They received all 28 although one might have been a replacement. These were all upgraded prior to delivery. They also received 18 brand new F16C/D aircraft. Uncle Sam's options were limited for moving heavy equipment as Afghanistan is surrounded by China, Iran, Pakistan and two of the Islamic Russian republics. Pakistan were lucky. NZ could have had issues if they leased these aircraft and tried to move through Islamic nations like....Indonesia or Malaysia? Shame that the US did not just offer ex US stocks or even better some F18's.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on May 31, 2018 11:47:50 GMT 12
Just an observation.
While reading the Transport Fleet replacement I was prompted to note that some have not got a grasp of the tie up between a nations defence forces and its alliances. Just discussing this from New Zealand’s situation all our defence force needs to be capable of is making an aggressors task difficult until the alliance/s we are in come on stream. Because we are at the end of the world (technically only possible on a flat Earth) we tend to think it will never happen and we are more likely to be one of the helpers in some other nations problem. Either way we are not going to be much use without a balanced defence force. To me it is more about capabilities than numbers. Every thing leads back to restoring our combat force.
Sorry to see the other two threads locked. I was happy sorting the wheat from the chaff and all discussions tend to wander. Did you note the factual inconsistency in the David Broome article which will surely leave an incorrect memory message in the minds of the defence illiterate.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on May 31, 2018 18:45:48 GMT 12
Ditto to above...
|
|
|
Post by typerated on May 31, 2018 21:54:55 GMT 12
Just an observation. While reading the Transport Fleet replacement I was prompted to note that some have not got a grasp of the tie up between a nations defence forces and its alliances. Just discussing this from New Zealand’s situation all our defence force needs to be capable of is making an aggressors task difficult until the alliance/s we are in come on stream. Because we are at the end of the world (technically only possible on a flat Earth) we tend to think it will never happen and we are more likely to be one of the helpers in some other nations problem. Either way we are not going to be much use without a balanced defence force. To me it is more about capabilities than numbers. Every thing leads back to restoring our combat force. Sorry to see the other two threads locked. I was happy sorting the wheat from the chaff and all discussions tend to wander. Did you note the factual inconsistency in the David Broome article which will surely leave an incorrect memory message in the minds of the defence illiterate. Nothing leads back to restoring an Air Combat Force: No political will. No public interest No magic money pot Other military priorities. No - we don't need (or can afford) a 'balanced' military to be useful to our allies. I think you will find it is just the opposite - Australia would like us to concentrate in a few key areas rather than be spread so thin that we are useless. I don't know your background but often Joe public having a rant is quite comical
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jun 2, 2018 10:10:56 GMT 12
For this I agree to a point the priority should be frigate numbers from 2 to 3/4.
But an ACF is not just about controlling ones airspace. Maritime interdiction should be the primary concern for a rejuvenated ACF and that is not the just Tasman sea.
The overall emphasis for Australia/New Zealand is to support the security of maritime environment in Southeast Asia, after that its the air-sea gap between Australia and the Indonesian archipelago its these area that will define the security of both Australia and New Zealand, lose control and we both are looking at a major strategic defeat without being invaded by a foreign power, think of the battle for Britain and the Air/Sea blockade by Nazi Germany.
The RAAF projected capability of the ACF of roughly 100 odd aircraft may sound a lot but in reality it cannot take a major losses, while comparing aircraft capbilties of the 1940's to today is non comparable, but what is comparable is the technological difference between modern aircraft and BVR capabilities in the modern era, if one looks at the attrition at the time of both Belligerents and when I say attrition its not just aircraft but in serviceability rates and crew and maintence personell numbers, the odds are not stacked in our favour.
|
|
|
Post by typerated on Jun 2, 2018 10:39:39 GMT 12
I suppose it depends how you define ACF.
I certainly see the P-8 as a combat aircraft - with far more relevance to NZ that fast jets.
It is also worth looking at how hard it is field operational fast jets. The Dutch, Belgians and German's struggles to deploy even a handful of fast jets puts any notion of NZ purchasing fast jets into perspective.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jun 2, 2018 11:20:47 GMT 12
This threads is in the same lala land as the Orion and transport replacement threads.
Reality is we had a previous govt that could have restored this capability,and chose not to.
We now have the same govt(maybe younger,different faces,but strings being pulled by the same people)that destroyed the capability,so they aren't interested,and in fact want more refugees,so might as well go down to the waterfront and lay out the red carpet for them.
Australia(politically) is not interested in NZ other than what they can get out of us or dump on us.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jun 2, 2018 12:06:18 GMT 12
I suppose it depends how you define ACF. I certainly see the P-8 as a combat aircraft - with far more relevance to NZ that fast jets. It is also worth looking at how hard it is field operational fast jets. The Dutch, Belgians and German's struggles to deploy even a handful of fast jets puts any notion of NZ purchasing fast jets into perspective. fundamental difference is that those countries you listed are part of a greater organisation NATO, and each sovereign ACF will mutually support each other while still keeping the ability to intervene as a sovereign entity if it so chooses, NZ does not have such capability to mutually support or have sovereign policy to achieve government goals independently, that's what a balanced force achieves Australia/New Zealand foreign policy does and will diverage at times
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Jun 2, 2018 12:22:30 GMT 12
This threads is in the same lala land as the Orion and transport replacement threads. Reality is we had a previous govt that could have restored this capability,and chose not to. We now have the same govt(maybe younger,different faces,but strings being pulled by the same people)that destroyed the capability,so they aren't interested,and in fact want more refugees,so might as well go down to the waterfront and lay out the red carpet for them. Australia(politically) is not interested in NZ other than what they can get out of us or dump on us. Current defence capability is ideology driven not budget driven as a % NZDF is sitting around 1% can sustain 2%.
Domestic politics doesn't require them to improve the situation compared to other areas.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jun 2, 2018 12:54:13 GMT 12
I suppose it depends how you define ACF. I certainly see the P-8 as a combat aircraft - with far more relevance to NZ that fast jets. It is also worth looking at how hard it is field operational fast jets. The Dutch, Belgians and German's struggles to deploy even a handful of fast jets puts any notion of NZ purchasing fast jets into perspective. When you compare the population/ tax base of those countries perhaps our current air force is an affordable size: Germany 83M Australia 25M Netherlands 17M Belgium 11M NZ 5M
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jun 2, 2018 13:57:41 GMT 12
I suppose it depends how you define ACF. I certainly see the P-8 as a combat aircraft - with far more relevance to NZ that fast jets. It is also worth looking at how hard it is field operational fast jets. The Dutch, Belgians and German's struggles to deploy even a handful of fast jets puts any notion of NZ purchasing fast jets into perspective. When you compare the population/ tax base of those countries perhaps our current air force is an affordable size: Germany 83M Australia 25M Netherlands 17M Belgium 11M NZ 5M Compare Norway with a population of 5.2M or Denmark with 5.7M This threads is in the same lala land as the Orion and transport replacement threads. Reality is we had a previous govt that could have restored this capability,and chose not to. We now have the same govt(maybe younger,different faces,but strings being pulled by the same people)that destroyed the capability,so they aren't interested,and in fact want more refugees,so might as well go down to the waterfront and lay out the red carpet for them. Australia(politically) is not interested in NZ other than what they can get out of us or dump on us.So why is that? Would a NZ more willing and able to act as an ally be treated differently? For this I agree to a point the priority should be frigate numbers from 2 to 3/4.
But an ACF is not just about controlling ones airspace. Maritime interdiction should be the primary concern for a rejuvenated ACF and that is not the just Tasman sea.
The overall emphasis for Australia/New Zealand is to support the security of maritime environment in Southeast Asia, after that its the air-sea gap between Australia and the Indonesian archipelago its these area that will define the security of both Australia and New Zealand, lose control and we both are looking at a major strategic defeat without being invaded by a foreign power, think of the battle for Britain and the Air/Sea blockade by Nazi Germany.
The RAAF projected capability of the ACF of roughly 100 odd aircraft may sound a lot but in reality it cannot take a major losses, while comparing aircraft capbilties of the 1940's to today is non comparable, but what is comparable is the technological difference between modern aircraft and BVR capabilities in the modern era, if one looks at the attrition at the time of both Belligerents and when I say attrition its not just aircraft but in serviceability rates and crew and maintence personell numbers, the odds are not stacked in our favour.
100+ front line aircraft is a sizeable force by global standards, particularly when they're all modern, backed up by E-7, JORN and KC-30, and equipped with munitions like the latest AIM-120 variant and AGM-158 JASSM. The list of nations that can better that is pretty short.
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Jun 2, 2018 14:06:16 GMT 12
Closer to our neck of the woods if we are doing comparos Singapore population of around 5m and a fast jet force the envy of many.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 2, 2018 14:34:24 GMT 12
The difference with Norway, Denmark and Singapore against New Zealand is all three of those nations have actually been invaded by aggressive forces in the past and found their defences wanting when they were needed, so they have learned valuable lessons that New Zealand has never gone through. We have a very good defence force in WWII when invasion did threaten but this was dismantled as soon as the danger past, whereas the nations who suffered the indignity of actually having a foreign invader take over and subjugate them have not let go so easily of their defences.
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Jun 2, 2018 16:17:28 GMT 12
The difference with Norway, Denmark and Singapore against New Zealand is all three of those nations have actually been invaded by aggressive forces in the past and found their defences wanting when they were needed, so they have learned valuable lessons that New Zealand has never gone through. We have a very good defence force in WWII when invasion did threaten but this was dismantled as soon as the danger past, whereas the nations who suffered the indignity of actually having a foreign invader take over and subjugate them have not let go so easily of their defences. Good point Dave. I suspect that if China establishes a foothold in the Pacific it will stir kiwis out of the defence slumber. Whilst it may not result in a reactivated ACF at least will bring the debate front of mind.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 2, 2018 16:53:29 GMT 12
Foothold? You've not been to Auckland lately have you? China owns most of the Pacific already, including a significant amount of New Zealand. Why do people have this notion they plan to start invading with military force? They are already here and they bought up companies, businesses, real estate farms, all over New Zealand the Pacific, and the companies not yet owned by them trade with them and often owe them money. They also own very sizeable chunks of the USA, Canada, Australia, and other nations. Why would they start a shooting war and risk destroying all their own assets when our immigration and commerce laws allow them to come and take over much more simply and cheaply? And they are a major influence on our current government so nothing is likely the change. If a NZ government ever tried to push back on what has already happened and force the foreign ownership out, that is when you'll have to worry about the military force from China. Right now they quite comfortably come and go as they please.
|
|