Jungly, thank you for your support of the most stupid assesment of the RNZAF strike wing to be promoted by the lefties and the peaceniks.
If the A4s were not a credible defence, how come they beat everyone on exercise for thirty-odd years?
This includes the RAF, RAAF, USAF, USN, RAN, RN, and the Singaporeans and Malaysians.
Our last exercise with the RAAF saw five Kahu A4s take out eight RAAF Hornets without loss to themselves.
Our last exercise with the Yanks saw the Skyhawks sink the US Navy 16 times, again without reciprocated loss.
The most recent exercise with the RN prompted the commander of the British flotilla to describe the A4s and P3s of the RNZAF as having provided the "most effective and credible threat" he had ever encountered in exercises, including those against the Americans and NATO allies.
The Pentagon consistently rated them as being able to defeat "any non-US force in south-east Asia."
This is fact, not regurgitated pinko government bull****. It's a matter of public and military record. Look it up.
The rest of your post I agree with wholeheartedly. It is irritating at best, however, to have the primary argument of fools and liars supported in a forum such as this by someone who should know better.
Upgraded to -C and -D capability the F-16s would have provided a better all-round air defence capability for New Zealand, but still would not have given the level of anti-ship strike capability that the A4s did, which is primarily what NZ needs them for.