Skyhawks - another step forward

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (deaneb @ Oct 9 2009, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not going to get into political arguments on this one !!! Even after serving 22 years in the RNZAF I can argue both ways as to whether we should or should not have a strike capability. We can't change things now.
I'm just pleased, as an aircraft enthusiast, that these birds are going to fly another day. It would have been sad to see them turned into scrap metal, which was one possible outcome.

Here Here -

Other big point , .. is simply the 'fact' moneys being spent on to keep them grounded .. quicker they go the best ..

They came in on a Carrier , they should leave on a Carrier .

[Goose]

im gonna stay out of the political side of this cos were never all gonna agree and people (myself included) generally have really strong opinions on it! but why don't we still operate the airmacchies( no idea how to spell that!) ? i know they are mostly a training aircraft but they have some strike capabilities, mostly ground attack i think but they are almost brand new aren't they?

[spongebob206]

Thanks Guy's

I totally agree, your arquments are sound.

Basically though as it has been said we MUST be seen to pull our weight and be willing to help out in all situations. We cannot just sit back and expect everyone to defend us.
Why would anyone want to help a country whom just wants to bludge.

As stated before, our pilots are the best in the world, why not train and use them in the pressure situation that can prove their skills and save lives?

No more to say

[Gavin Conroy]

Was just looking through my website stats for the week and there are over 70 searches for A4 Skyhawk.

When I made up the new site I forgot to add some photos of the Skyhawks so have just added 70 photos of the aircraft during the transition to Whitehawks.

Now that approval of the sale has been granted I guess its time to "Show me the money" and in todays environment that might be difficult.

Thanks to the handful of guys how took me to get the Skyhawk photos on the website.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (markll @ Oct 12 2009, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Personally I'm torn on this issue. We're all plane buffs here, and I love the old A4s to BITS but the plain fact is that NZ just doesn't need a combat wing. Over 30 odd years, the A4s were used in anger how many times? Ok, you could argue that a more modern air combat capability would mean we could deploy more than just the SAS to Afghanistan, but really, they wouldn't be making a serious difference over there would they?

Yes our guys in clapped out old A4s kicked arse compared to yankee F16 jet jocks, and yes fast jets are cool to watch at airshows, and fun to fly, but hell, it's a real shedload of taxpayer $$ to pay for a couple of dozen big boys toys isn't it?

Couple of related things here - apparently the Argentines have something called the "A-4AR" - saw a pic of it in a magazine today. Anyone know how it compares to a project Kahu A4K?

Also saw a mag that listed the top 5 US military aircraft. They were, in this order (counting down): F22 F35, F15C, F15E and at number 1 was the FA18E Super Hornet! Wow! I was a bit surprised by that...I guess I'd only heard the BAD publicity about the superbug...Anyway, to put it in perspective, they state that it's a "Cheap" frontline combat aircraft, and even suggest that there is a bit of a campaign going on to see the Superbug equipping Air National Guard units, and to hell with the F22! They state the cost as being a shade under 50 million US$, and so if thats a CHEAP modern combat aircraft, then for NZ to get a couple of squadrons of them, you're looking at upwards of a couple of billon NZ$. Kinda like the amount paid for the ANZAC Frigates, and we all know how controversial THAT purchase was!

Mark

The whole point of having fast jets is mainly as a deterent from an invading force it also makes other countrys be more respectful of a country with a good defence force. When you don't have a good defence force it can effect overseas trade because the other countrys leaders look down on such nations. If they still had A4s now they would most likely have deployed them to Afghanistan as they were ideal for CAS. The reason why the F/A-18E/F rates so high is because its latest upgrade has an AESA radar which can allow the aircraft to engage multiple air and ground targets simultaneously its quite awesome. I think ideally NZ would need 2nd hand aircraft such as F-16 just one Squadron of them and equipt with Penguin missiles would be the cheaper option than going new Superhornets eventhough Aussie is getting them. BTW they've tested one F22 or F35 acting as the aircraft tracking and locking air/ground targets and then using the superhornets as just the launch aircraft for AAMs while the stealth aircraft provide the radar guidance for the missiles until they go active which is how they will most likely use them in the future not only the US but also Aussie.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (redkiwi @ Oct 13 2009, 03:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In essence, it shouldn't be a walk in a park to take what is ours. The true cost is when/if we ever get invaded, unable to put up a fight other than few under-armed Naval ships, and the Army with 50% of it's artillery sitting in a warehouse un-used. Don't get me wrong, the NZDF are great at what they do, but it is likely that the defence of NZ would come down to militia groups (how many farmers etc in NZ are good hunters?).

What artillery pieces are in warehouses? Lol I couldn't imagine NZ being saved by Farmers with hunting rifles its an unlikely scenario.

[redkiwi]

QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Oct 11 2009, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What artillery pieces are in warehouses? Lol I couldn't imagine NZ being saved by Farmers with hunting rifles its an unlikely scenario.

the LAVIII's are - approx half of them are still in storage.

The idea of the people taking up arms in a country like NZ is not so far fetched, it happened in WWII in parts of Europe.

[deaneb]

QUOTE (redkiwi @ Oct 11 2009, 10:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The idea of the people taking up arms in a country like NZ is not so far fetched, it happened in WWII in parts of Europe.

I don't think future wars will be anything like WWII and the idea of the average person/farmer taking up arms is ridiculous. Any call to arms would require training via the military if they were stretched to a point it was required. Highly unlikely.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (redkiwi @ Oct 16 2009, 09:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the LAVIII's are - approx half of them are still in storage.

The idea of the people taking up arms in a country like NZ is not so far fetched, it happened in WWII in parts of Europe.

A Lav is not an artillery piece its a Light Armoured Vehicle used mainly as an armoured personel carrier in NZ. Although it may seem feasible that a militia would fend off an invasion you are forgetting that NZ has quite a good armed force with alot of experience. To assume that farmers could get organised and beat an invading army on its own is unrealistic as to beat a trainned army requires another trainned army and theres more to war than just taking pot shots with hunting rifles.

[Grumble]

Setting up and maintaining any credible force of combat aircraft is probably not with the economic capabilities of NZ at present. If you want to do some reading on this take a look at some of the defense analysis here: http://www.ausairpower.net/

The F16s offered us were not equipped with current avionics, nor were they capable of using much of the weaponry currently deployed in the news you see today. From what I understand the upgrades required to bring them up to modern standards would have cost a significant amount of money.

Since we also lack infrastructure such as AWACS and air refueling, any combat aircraft purchased would serve as little more than a point interceptor, unless you want to use them for maritime patrol - something to which the F16 is not especially well suited. Combat deployment overseas would also be difficult, again due to the lack of the infrastructure required to support them.

As to the argument that lacking an air strike capability loses us respect in the eyes of our trading partners... er... no. Just no. We have caused some frustration to the Australians in our lack of willingness to spend more on defense, but I'm sure that they agree that we are better served by devoting what resources we *do* have to areas where the money buys a credible return. We could do with a better navy, a larger and better equipped army, and a more significant air defense capability, all of which would make a significant contribution to regional defense as well as serve on deployments overseas.

There is no point in purchasing obsolete military equipment.

[jastheace]

i have read this with interest, having been raised by my grandpearnts, it was an intresting day when they strike wing was scrapped, grandfather was appalled, he was a mechanic in the islands in 39-45, he like alot of older and current RNZAF folks could not understand the logic, better to have an obsolete aircraft and upgrade it than purchase a new one, case in point the f-16 had the older avionics and weapon interface, but that can be upgrade, which is what some other countries are doing for less than a new build aircraft. that is debatable though as the f-16s never happened. as far as the LAV's go, great piece of gear, with alot of success overseas, it seems though ours where built to a price and we got lemons. as far as transporting them, there comes the bigger problem, it is well known our hercules are an old aircraft, some of the first of the line from what i understand, we have five hercs? and out of those five at anyone time on one or two are servicable, and even then they have small issues? i am only going on what i have been told, i know some people here in oz cannot believe that our hercs are still flying, technically they shouldn't, but then RNZAF always has been able to keep aircraft flying no matter how old, the upgrade to the hercs and orions are case in point. personally i would love to see the strikewing back up and running, but at the moment i think the are more pressing issues at hand, the NH-90's have addressed one issue with the iroquois getting old, now NZ need more than ever a new herc to replace the old girls that have worked so hard for so many years, the very isolation that would limit nz's enemys is also nz's worst enemy in helping our allies in short notice. if we cannot get our amry and gear out to help by any other way than a slow boat what good is having an army?

As far as the skyhawks are concerend, they are going back to america are they not? if it is the place i am thinking of they will be flying for quite some time in the future, and i think they will be slapped in a container and sent by ship, not a great way for the proud old birds to leave our shores.

they should fly them out and give NZ one more final fly past.

on another note, it has been noted that RAAF has got the hornets, then new super hornets are still being seen by some as a stop gap until the new f-35 is supplied, others though want to keep the hornets as well, to complement the RAAF, maybe if they do decide to sell the Hornets, maybe NZ could look at them??

just my thoughts, i will now go back to lurking

[Naki]

APA Australia..IMO Carlo Kopp talks rubbish!

There are big issues with the Hercs as I understand it - the current update has ohad ngoing delays and difficulties which leaves three Hercs available including those on regular maintenance. By the time they finish the update they wil be due for reaplacment which is a bloody waste of money inj my virew. They should of bought J model Hercs when instead of trying to update a 40 year old airframe..look what happened to the Aussiie Seasprites!

The regular F-18s in RAAF service wil be knackered and out of date by the time they are available on the S/H market.

[jastheace]

QUOTE (Naki @ Oct 18 2009, 11:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

APA Australia..IMO Carlo Kopp talks rubbish!

There are big issues with the Hercs as I understand it - the current update has ohad ngoing delays and difficulties which leaves three Hercs available including those on regular maintenance. By the time they finish the update they wil be due for reaplacment which is a bloody waste of money inj my virew. They should of bought J model Hercs when instead of trying to update a 40 year old airframe..look what happened to the Aussiie Seasprites!

The regular F-18s in RAAF service wil be knackered and out of date by the time they are available on the S/H market.

they are talking about standardising on the f-35, so the new super hornet would go too if they went with that option, i personally cannot see them getting rid of the super hornets, espically considering they are getting some wired from the factory as growlers, i take everything i read in the papers and magazine with a grain of salt, i agree with you on the hercs, it would be intresting to see what all the upgrades cost as apposed to a new build aircraft,

[Naki]

QUOTE (jastheace @ Oct 14 2009, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

they are talking about standardising on the f-35, so the new super hornet would go too if they went with that option, i personally cannot see them getting rid of the super hornets, espically considering they are getting some wired from the factory as growlers, i take everything i read in the papers and magazine with a grain of salt, i agree with you on the hercs, it would be intresting to see what all the upgrades cost as apposed to a new build aircraft,

Yeah I agree totally the Super Hornets would be ideal in New Zealand service if for any reason the combat force was reinstated. They are relatively cheap (compared with other new combat aircraft..except the Gripen and F-16)..also agree that the RAAF wont get rid of them when the F-35s start arriving.

[Grumble]

QUOTE (Naki @ Oct 13 2009, 12:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah I agree totally the Super Hornets would be ideal in New Zealand service if for any reason the combat force was reinstated. They are relatively cheap (compared with other new combat aircraft..except the Gripen and F-16)..also agree that the RAAF wont get rid of them when the F-35s start arriving.

Again, I disagree. Yes, they are twin-engined and thus better suited for the maritime role than the F-16 (which yes, *can* be upgraded... but the upgrade is very expensive - and if you look carefully at the nations that have purchased them you will see that they are almost all smaller countries than NZ that do not have require the range or the over-the-sea, over-the-horizon capability we would need). But take a look around. The F18E/F has been offered in many of the major arms deals currently going on around the world - cf Brazil, India, Austria, Thailand... and it has been placed *last* in every single one. It is not a flanker killer, let alone a PAK / FA killer. It lacks both range and observability and requires a lot of dedicated logistics to stay on station. And that's the E/F model. The Australian hornets have shorter legs and less capable avionics. The Aussies are replacing them for a reason - no one spends billions of dollars unless it needs spending.

I currently live in Japan, which is also desperately seeking a replacement for F15Js. They have introduced the F-2 - basically an upgraded F16C with better avionics, and have already canceled further orders because they have found that it just isn't a capable enough aircraft in today's world. Interestingly, Japan's aviation needs slightly parallel that of our own - they are an island nation with a long coastline, albeit the fact that they have flankers right next door.

In short, I don't think the F16 OR the F18 would be a deterrent if deployed in a way that NZ could afford. And there is no point in purchasing a deterrent that *isn't* a deterrent.

[Naki]

The Super Hornet is still in the running in Brazil (ok the Raafle is suppsoe to of won but the final decsiosn hasnt been made on what would be political decision in any case) and India is long way from making a decision. Thailand couldnt afford Super Hornets and chose the Gripen and then could only afford 6 and Austria got a deal on the Typhoon they couldnt refuse plus it was compatible with the Luftwafe. It still under consideration by other countires including Denmark (which IMO wil go for the F-35), Kuwait, Malaysia and Japan... and there are rumours that the USAF will also take some.

The SH offers a big bang for the buck and has better range than any of the cheaper options and many of the more expensive options..if it didnt have the range the Aussies wouldnt be getting them. Yes I agree it will never be a Flanker killer, only the Typhoon, Rafale , F-22 and probably the F-35 can be called those and they are all more expensive than a SH. Any RNZAF SH squadron would work with our allies in any conflict as would US Navy SHs would with F35s from any carrier. ...but we are all dreaming because there is not a s h..t show of the RNZAF getting any combat a/c unless this end of the world implodes...which is unlkely and if it did it wil be too late for us to do anything about that!

The only reason the Japanese are not getting anymore F-2s is that they cost more than just about any combat aircaft available off the shelf...nearly twice as much as a Super Hornet!

[Grumble]

QUOTE (Naki @ Oct 13 2009, 02:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only reason the Japanese are not getting anymore F-2s is that they cost more than just about any combat aircaft available off the shelf...nearly twice as much as a Super Hornet!

Fair points on the other ones, but no, regarding the F2, it's not just the cost. The pilots here are not fond of them in any way, shape, or form. (I used to work on the local JASDF base in a civilian capacity). Within the service it is not highly regarded at all. As to them considering the F18... I know the suggestion has been tabled but there is little support for it. As far as I know, the F18 is now largely out of the running in Malaysia and Kuwait as well.

[Naki]

Ok thats interesting re F-2s. It will be interesting what the Japanese put their money into next in regards to combat aircaft. They still have F-4s dont they before they need to replace the F-15s? I guess they arent going to get F-22s (which they have requested) and if not will they wait for F-35s, which I doubt they can if they need to replace the ancient Phantoms first. I see them swinging towards the Typhoon as a filler until the F-35 comes on stream. Your view Grumble?

[Grumble]

QUOTE (Naki @ Oct 13 2009, 03:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok thats interesting re F-2s. It will be interesting what the Japanese put their money into next in regards to combat aircaft. They still have F-4s dont they before they need to replace the F-15s? I guess they arent going to get F-22s (which they have requested) and if not will they wait for F-35s, which I doubt they can if they need to replace the ancient Phantoms first. I see them swinging towards the Typhoon as a filler until the F-35 comes on stream. Your view Grumble?

Interestingly enough the phantoms are doing the job they ask them to do. The F35 is not well regarded, since they see it as mainly being positioned in the strike role, which contravenes their constitution in its current form. What's more, although final capabilities have yet to be established, they see the F35 as being inferior in a2a capability when put up against the upgraded versions of the Flanker it would be likely to encounter should they see action. They really, really want the F22, but as you say, that doesn't look likely.

There are mumblings about the Eurofighter, but given that their current logistic / supply systems are all domestic or US-based, that would be a difficult purchase. There are also rumors that they are developing an indigenous 5th-gen fighter:

http://inventorspot.com/articles/new_jasdf...ter_jet_be_6254
http://aviationweek.typepad.com/ares/2007/...bishi_stea.html

Certainly they have the expertise, and, quite frankly, the need, but whether they will do so is anyone's guess. Over the past year the US has left Japan in the lurch (quietly) in favoring China in both trade and international relations. It will be interesting to see what develops.

[2fst4u]

I've never seen an argument become so in-depth. There's some pretty good facts in this thread. But anyways, i agree we don't really need the strike capability that much. However I heard somewhere that NZ has one of the largest areas to defend and look after (if you included the pacific island nations and sheer size of the ocean that we patrol) and yet we have one of the smallest and least equipped navies. We would be far better off putting our resources into more (and better) naval vessels and maritime surveillance aircraft like the orions and even the new boeing that is being built