Disbandment of the RNZAF air combat force

[1] This followed a debate over whether 28 General Dynamics F-16 A/B Fighting Falcon fighter aircraft should be leased from the United States to replace the Skyhawks.

Defence commentators' views differed, with some seeing the air combat force as being of little value while others feeling that New Zealand would be overly reliant on its allies, Australia in particular.

The delivery party was met with minor local opposition from anti-war[7] protest groups[8] who were concerned about New Zealand and its friendly relations with the United States in regards to the ongoing Vietnam War.

The Skyhawk upgrade was extremely comprehensive, including a new radar, HOTAS controls, glass cockpit with HUD and new inertial navigation system.

The cost of the project was NZ$140 million and gave the RNZAF Skyhawks the electronic “eyes and ears” of a modern fighter aircraft such as the F-16 Fighting Falcon or McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet.

[9] Despite cooling of NZ-US relations over New Zealands new anti-nuclear policy, the US Congress gave its approval in December 1985, while other work was accomplished by New Zealand-based companies such as Pacific Aerospace.

However, while the upgrades took place, it was further planned to eventually replace the Skyhawk fleet with leased F-16 Aircraft from the United States in the near future.

The government decided to acquire the aircraft under a lease-buy deal, with payments taking place over the course of 10 years, with much of the total cost being offset by the proposed sale of the existing A-4 Skyhawk fleet to the Philippine Air Force.

A paper from the Centre for Strategic Studies stated that F-16 fighter aircraft would be a preferable choice in comparison to reconstituting the air combat force with attack helicopters, stating that "The F-16 is a much lower cost option, is more versatile, effective in a wider range of roles, easier to deploy, less risk to operate and will be usable from the time the aircraft arrived in New Zealand."

Goff expressed the Labour Party's belief in focusing on contributing to global security through peacekeeping efforts, citing New Zealand's economic and political interests in promoting a peaceful international environment.

Goff views peacekeeping as a crucial means of translating concerns about human rights into tangible actions, noting the widespread support for such endeavors in both political and public spheres in New Zealand.

It has been concerned more about pleasing military chiefs in Australia and the United States, than about meeting the practical needs arising from the responsibilities we are actually placing on our armed forcesAs a result, the official Labour Party platform was to strongly oppose the deal, in favour of addressing deficiencies in the composition of the New Zealand Army, primarily for the role of performing peacekeeping operations.

The party proposed halving defence spending to $800 million NZD through eliminating air and naval combat capabilities.

The report was critical of a lack of proper processes in determining defence acquisition priorities, and noted that multiple top-priority projects had not yet had funding allocated.

[26][27] She stated that while reducing the number of F-16s as recommended by Quigley would have moderated the funding pressure the lease posed for the defence budget, "it would not have removed it".

Clark stated that the Government would focus on improving priority-setting in the defence budget, which would include consideration of whether the air combat force should be retained.

[28] The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet published a report on options for the RNZN's air combat capability in February 2001.

The report judged that disbanding the air combat force "would assist in the rebuilding of the NZDF, significantly reducing the need for additional funding".

[29] On 8 May 2001, Clark announced that the government had decided to disband the RNZAF's air combat force, which would involve withdrawing the Skyhawks and Aermacchi MB-339 training jets.

[31][32] The views of defence experts differed, with some also being disappointed while others supported the decision on the grounds that the air combat force was of little practical value.

[38][39] A political group of concerned civilians and ex-serviceman, called "Save Our Squadrons (SOS)" was formed to protest the move, and took high court action in an attempt to prevent its loss, but was unsuccessful[40] The sale and disposal of the Skyhawk and Aermacchi aircraft took over a decade.

However, potential coalition partner and National Leader Bill English announced at the same time that there was "no possibility" of keeping the Skyhawk aircraft.

While wishing to reinstate the ACF, at this point, it was deemed unfeasible due to the loss of equipment, pilots and the deteriorating condition of the aircraft in storage at RNZAF Base Woodbourne.

In 2011, the Dominion Post stated that Defence officials had hoped to return 17 Aermacchi MB-339 jet trainers to service, but were unable due to "engine issues".

Senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic Studies Lance Beath further affirmed this position, stating that New Zealand would face a future with no "fast-jet" defence capability, with the air force now relegated to transport and trainer aircraft, as well as a small number of helicopters.

Political blogger Karl du Fresne agreed with this viewpoint, further asserting that the NZDF "now completely lacks international credibility".

14 Squadron RNZAF Aermacchi MB-339 jet trainer aircraft, which were decommissioned in 2001, but were flown occasionally to keep them in operational condition.

[53] USAF Lieutenant General David Nahom told the Senate Appropriations defence subcommittee on May 17 that while Draken's aircraft were good for basic pilot training, they were not effective against jets like F-22s or F-35s” in exercises.