Royal New Zealand Air Force

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
You can rule out the RNZAF hanging on to them, if that's what you're wondering. The UH-1H is no longer officially supported by the US (or just about), it's old mechanical technology, it would be a support headache for the air force due to lack of spares (and probably a safety risk liability etc). Presumably they will be sold (if clearance from the US can be given) as there's a bit of a second hand civilian market of there for them or scapped. But hopefully one or two would be kept for the RNZAF museum, those Hueys eh, they are a bit of an icon, would be nice to see a couple of them thuddering around at airshows with those other warbirds (maybe with the Ride of the Valkyries blasting out of some horns!):D
 

Preceptor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Please use this thread to carry out or continue any discussion with regards to the RNZAF, any planned or possible future purchases, news, etc.
-Preceptor
 

riksavage

Banned Member
If not mentioned already........

The New Zealanders should invest in a squadron of lead in fighter / trainers, either the Hawk Mk 127 LIFT or Aermacchi M-311 basic jet trainer / light combat aircraft for the following reasons:

  • Maintains a core group of trained fast-jet pilots on the cheap
  • Could share facilities / training with Aussies (user of Hawk 127)
  • Have a credible ground attack aircraft with limited CAS (much need in Afghanistan where the Kiwis are deployed)
  • In time of conflict transfer the fighter / trainer back to its traditional role and buy / lease second-hand fighters from a close Ally (UK – Typhoon or US F16/18) allowing for a rapid upgrade in capabilities.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
If not mentioned already........

The New Zealanders should invest in a squadron of lead in fighter / trainers, either the Hawk Mk 127 LIFT or Aermacchi M-311 basic jet trainer / light combat aircraft for the following reasons:

  • Maintains a core group of trained fast-jet pilots on the cheap
  • Could share facilities / training with Aussies (user of Hawk 127)
  • Have a credible ground attack aircraft with limited CAS (much need in Afghanistan where the Kiwis are deployed)
  • In time of conflict transfer the fighter / trainer back to its traditional role and buy / lease second-hand fighters from a close Ally (UK – Typhoon or US F16/18) allowing for a rapid upgrade in capabilities.
The NZDF already owns 17 MB-339CB fast jet trainers. Since the demise of the ACF, they have not had any role in the RNZAF and are not listed in the aircraft in inventory. Instead, they are maintain and periodically flown to keep them in "saleable" condition, despite no viable offers in approximately five years. The RNZAF A-4 Skyhawks are kept in storage, also pending sale (which requires approval from the US gov). More information on possible uses for the MB-339 by NZ can be found here. Also, some of the NZ-themed threads discussing general NZ defence issues also touch on the subject as well.

Given how the NZDF currently seems to deploy, aside from perhaps activating 1-2 copies on a rotating basis to provide joint service training (RNZN & Army air defence, FAC, etc.) I do not see activating the whole unit happening.

Once other priorities are met (like the aging transport capability) or if a comprehensive defence review is conducted which indicates a significant need, then perhaps a fast jet squadron would reform.

-Cheers
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
In a few years the Royal New Zealand Air Force will be recieving the eight NH90s it has ordered (plus one for parts). This is supposedly going to completely replace the current fleet of UH-1H Iroqouis. What will become of these now obsolete aircraft? :confused:

The 14 UH-1 aircraft will be put out of service and they will probably be sent to the RNZAF musieum or maybe antoer country will want to buy them. I don't think anyone will buy them because they are old and it cost a lot to keep them running so most likely they will go to the RNZAF musieum.
 

NZDF FAN

New Member
I'm not going to try to fool anyone into thinking I know a heck of alot about military helicopters :p: , but wouldn't the UH-60 be a suitable alternative to the NH-90 due to the fact that it has been 'tried and tested' in the field, and that it was actually desgined to replace the UH-1H? :confused:
 

NZDF FAN

New Member
It hardly seems safe to invest all that money on an aircraft that has not yet seen active service. How do we know it will suit NZ?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
It hardly seems safe to invest all that money on an aircraft that has not yet seen active service. How do we know it will suit NZ?
You release a request for information.

You then have to decide a few things:

How far the helicopter has to be able to fly.

You decide how many troops the helicopter has to carry.

You decide how high the helicopter has to be able to operate.

You decide how heavy your helicopter can be to operate off your naval ships.

You decide how much engine power your helicopter must have, so that it can operate in the range of environments, temperatures and altitudes you need to operate in.

You decide how many helicopters you need to move certain forces around the battlefield.

You decide what equipment your helicopters need to have to survive in terms of electronic warfare equipment, what sensors they need to have in terms of FLIR systems, radars etc.

You decide what equipment your helicopters need to be able to operate with your allies and your own forces, ie: radio's, door mounted guns, winches etc.

You decide how much you are prepared to spend on support costs, ie: the more you spend, the more capable your helicopter can be.

You then conduct market research to look for helicopters which seem to meet your requirements.

You then go and fly said helicopters and test for yourself, whether or not they meet your requirements.

You then release a request for tender, which allows the companies bidding for your contract to provide you with specific contract information to allow you to make a decision on all the above plus a lot more.

Why active service should be considered is beyond me???
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Skyhawk update

The Marlborough Express had an item last weekend on the Skyhawks being moved from their storage hanger (but the online article disappeared before I could post it. It did actually mention putting the Skyhawks outside but possibly out of public viewing which if so is a shame for the Air Force to have to have the hide them for "political" reasons). However the Dominion Post has a follow up article today and better explains the reasons for the possible shift.


Skyhawks may have to move from hangar
HANK SCHOUTEN - The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 19 September 2007

The air force's 17 mothballed Skyhawk fighter bombers may have to be parked outside to free up the hangar where they have been gathering dust for the past six years.


The aircraft have been housed in a Safe Air hangar at Woodbourne, near Blenheim, since the air combat wing was disbanded in 2002.

But the hangar needs to be cleared as it is needed for work on modernising the RNZAFs C130 Hercules aircraft.

Air force chief Air Vice-Marshall Graham Lintott said alterations on the hangar would need to begin in November in preparation for the Hercules upgrade project.

Options for storing the Skyhawks included parking them outside at the air base, storing them in crates or trucking them to another location for storage.

An air force spokesman said that, if they were to be stored outside, they would be sprayed with a protective coating of latex. The same technique was used in the United States, where old planes were parked in the Arizona desert.

A former Skyhawk avionics technician, Don Simms, said the aircraft had deteriorated during the past six years and "putting them outside is the final nail in the coffin".

He said they should be used to train ground staff. Engineers were still training on the old Devon aircraft in which he did his training 20 years ago.

Skyhawks were perfect for training, as they had sophisticated avionics and took up little hangar space.

Those that were not needed for training should be displayed in museums in New Zealand and Australia, Mr Simms said.

The Skyhawks have not been flown since the squadron was grounded - they were reaching the end of their operational life and were too expensive to maintain in flying condition.

In 2005, the Government announced the Skyhawks and 17 newer Aermacchi training jets had been sold for $155 million to Arizona-based Tactical Air Services, but the sale has been stalled by US Government red tape.

Last month Prime Minister Helen Clark said the Skyhawks were no longer of interest to serious buyers, just the "odd collector".

[Story ends]

Hmm, interesting idea to use some for ground crew training. Interesting idea to put them in museums (wonder if the Aussies would want some of the ex-RAN A4-G's back for display in a RAN FAA museum)?

Today's Marborough Express also has a follow piece on the Skyhawks. Check out the last sentance.

Skyhawk scream ends in whimper
The Marlborough Express | Wednesday, 19 September 2007

For many years the skies above New Zealand used to be ruptured by the scream of Skyhawk jets as they went through practice exercises, writes The Marlborough Express in an editorial.


If you lived in the central North Island they could be watched way up in the sky screeching up to the central plateau, turning round at Mount Ruapehu and racing back home again to their Ohakea airbase. It would be all over in seconds - the big noise, the whizzing past and then silence and a jet trail.

That all stopped six years ago when the Labour Government decided to scrap the Royal New Zealand Air Force's strike wing.

But it has been a long, slow end for the jets.

The latest episode has the jets ignominiously put aside from their hangar and stored outside as their hangar is used for a refit for the Hercules, the workhorse of the New Zealand Air Force.

The 17 Skyhawks have been sold.

An American buyer has been lined up to buy the jets for a reported $155 million but the sale has been held up for months by the United States State Department. You just can't up and import jets into a country. And because of the prolonged nature of the sale, there are doubts it will go through.

The Skyhawks have been housed at Woodbourne by Safe Air since they were decommissioned at a cost of thousands of dollars a month. The Air Force has been asked precisely how much it costs to store the planes, but have yet to answer.

And now it seems the planes are likely to be stored outdoors.

Why should we care? Hasn't everyone accepted New Zealand has buried its air force strike arm for good. Are they just not some clapped out planes well past by their use by date?

Apparently not. The avionics on the planes could be put to good use according to a former avionics technician, who believes they can be saved if rescued now.

The argument is that the flight controls and systems can be applied to training personnel for other planes that the Air Force still uses.

And the planes should be kept in reasonably good nick so if they aren't sold they can be donated or bought by museums and interested parties around the country, says another Skyhawk fan.

The planes in their current state and position are a problem for the Government. Something of a khaki elephant. As the sale saga drags on, there is talk the planes will eventually have nowhere to go and be sold for scrap.

The Air Force is putting the options of 'what next for the jets' before the Minister of Defence this week. Perhaps it will be a decision that brings this drawn out farewell to the Skyhawks to an end.

[Story ends]
 

jase1

New Member
Hi guys, last week my son and I where lucky enough to go to Woodbourne and see the Skyhawks up and close.
A mate of mine is in charge of maintaining as best they can the A4s while they are in storage (photos on Wings over NZ forum) and these planes will not be going overseas anytime soon, plans are a foot to get the Airforce Training School to get hold of 6 and Wigram are trying to get hold of a TA-4K but it is a different story with the MB339s
Air-Force pilots are struggling to make the jump from the King-Air to the Herc and Orions and the Air-Force knows that the MB339 can and will bridge that gap, it is common knowledge within Air-Force circles that MB339 coming back into active service is on the cards and even now the RNZAF are flying the MB339 more often.
Its not a combat wing but it is a start>
 

mug

New Member
it is common knowledge within Air-Force circles that MB339 coming back into active service is on the cards and even now the RNZAF are flying the MB339 more often.
Its not a combat wing but it is a start>
Not in air force circles, so haven't heard this - care to elaborate?
 

Markus40

New Member
A start for what??? For any MB339 resurrection will require long and hard thinking by any government of ours to the long term aspects of our ACF. Its not just a simple "lets get them out of the hanger and fly em" proposition.

The question of pilot recruitment and retainability, the ongoing advanced training into a air combat wing. The overall Defence Doctrine of NZDFs and the government in terms of regional security. The overall training requirements required by an aircraft to train our 3 wings of armed forces. Does the long term aspects of resurrecting the MB339s meet the long term goals of future regional security roles with Australia. Does this aircraft as a sole ACW actually meet the future apirations of our combat pilots without risking attrition.? Or are we going to see a repeat of Labours policies after 6 years of Nationals policy of having got as far as training and meeting at least our immediate security goals find that they end up back in the hanger where they came from and pilots having to find similar roles in the RAF or RAAF.?

Is it nieve to believe that after labours ability to shoot the airforce out of the air already, that the same wouldnt happen again after National changes the ACF policy in the interim?

For me personally i think having the MB339s in the air again would be great
and have some benefits to our combat forces if you can call them that presently, along with some immediate ACF ability as far as air to ground is concerned, but i dont think for any minute a government isnt going to think about these issues before taking into account some serious long term issues that i have raised already. Something to think about in any case. Cheers.

Hi guys, last week my son and I where lucky enough to go to Woodbourne and see the Skyhawks up and close.
A mate of mine is in charge of maintaining as best they can the A4s while they are in storage (photos on Wings over NZ forum) and these planes will not be going overseas anytime soon, plans are a foot to get the Airforce Training School to get hold of 6 and Wigram are trying to get hold of a TA-4K but it is a different story with the MB339s
Air-Force pilots are struggling to make the jump from the King-Air to the Herc and Orions and the Air-Force knows that the MB339 can and will bridge that gap, it is common knowledge within Air-Force circles that MB339 coming back into active service is on the cards and even now the RNZAF are flying the MB339 more often.
Its not a combat wing but it is a start>
 

jase1

New Member
Not in air force circles, so haven't heard this - care to elaborate?
You Air-Force? Have two mates who at the moment are getting the A4s ready for outside storage, 1 is an ex- armourer and the other is ex RNZAF Skyhawk tech who both work for Safe-Air so what ever they say id take as gold, just because you might be RNZAF means jack, it is common knowledge that the RNZAF is considering making a submission to get the MB339s up and running.
The only buyer for the MB339s is Hoss Pearsons (ATSI) who has recently said that he would now only buy the MB339s not the Skyhawks and if he does not buy them who will? They have on average only 1500-2000hrs on the airframe which means unlike the Skyhawks you cant scrap them etc and if you cannot sell them or scrap them what is your only option? Go figure
It also is common knowledge that pilots are struggling to make the jump from King-Air to the Herc or Orions and again if your Air-Force you should know that as everyone else seems to know this.
If your Air-Force you should also know how and where the A4s will be stored but you will not so I will tell you.
The A4s will be stored on the grass by the engine test bay at Base Woodbourne surrounded by 40ft shipping containers with poles inside the compound holding up sun-shade mesh, there are concerns about the A4s sinking in the grass so the wheels will sit on metal plates (will still sink).
If your in the Air-force circle you should also know who is in charge of selling the Skyhawks? but you wont so again I will tell you "Chris Calvert", again if you are RNZAF you should know who he is.
My comments may sound arrogant but my point is that a lot of people know what is going on and just because you might be RNZAF doesnt mean you know every -thing relating to the MB339s and A4s
Regards

Mod edit: I think he outlined the fact that he is NOT a member of the RNZAF and therefore wanted you to explain further if you were willing...

AD
 

Lawman

New Member
On the subject of the replacement helos, I would actually have been very sorely tempted to go for a single type. A batch of 20 Bell 412s, AW-139s or UH-1Ys would have been an ideal replacement for the UH-1Hs, and be able to do the LUH role. A common batch of helos would have been easier to support, and a single type would have allowed a lower unit cost.

On the subject of other types in RNZAF service, in the absence of any fighter force, then it is really only going to be maritime patrol and transport aircraft. For the maritime patrol role, the Orions are able to serve for a good few more years, but I would be interested in seeing them replaced with something newer. I would look seriously at some of the business jet conversions - they may be small, but they are quite effective, and nowadays can have most of the same systems as big maritime patrol aircraft. A batch of Gulfstream G550s in maritime patrol configuration would be an attractive option, and should have suitable range.

For transports, the question is really whether to go for more Hercs, or to maybe go for a split buy of, say, A-400Ms and C-295s or C-27Js. A batch of 4 A-400Ms and 8 C-295s might be a good way to go, but I am not so sure about the C-295s ability to operate from NZ to anywhere useful...

I would also look very seriously at getting some weaponised UAVs, e.g. Predator or Hermes, which would be able to provide at least some air support to the ground troops.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
You Air-Force? .....
Um, I think Mug is actually in the Navy (he's probably relishing the thought of firing at one of these MB339's next time he's on an exercise and is near a 50 cal HMG :D Or near the launch button of the Nato seasparrow :D :D and thus wanted to know whether the MB339's really are a go-er)!

Seriously though, thanks for the info and hopefully the air force and Defence Minister Goff manage to convince the PM & Cabinet to release some funding for the training reactivation etc.

I suppose though, with what little info has been "released", we cannot be sure that anything more than pilot training is all they will be used for (although it would be welcome) if funding were to be made available. I mean a few of us got excited on the other NZDF forum a couple of months ago thinking that army and navy air threat and FAC training may resume too but who knows that may not be the intention (it may only simply be advanced pilot training - if so will the MB339's be re-painted "an acceptable" canary yellow to reflect their training only role :confused: ) !!!
 

mug

New Member
Indeed. Although thanks for your informative post jase1.

I was unaware that the RNZAF's plans for the Aermacchis were as you described, and the 1 or 2 RNZAF people I've asked are similarly unaware of such plans. That is not to say that there are no such plans.

It would be nice to have them back in the air, and it would be interesting to see how viable that would be.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Talking about Skyhawk's - dunno why I never checked the web for vids before until now (doh) !
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL6bGi2iYAg"]YouTube - A4K Skyhawk: "Kiwi Red" Tribute (New Zealand) (1990)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kaf1xPa_RX0"]YouTube - RNZAF A-4K Skyhawk Tribute 1[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1QuYuyuHdo"]YouTube - RNZAF A-4K Skyhawk Tribute 2[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H8XpuiPCFg"]YouTube - RNZAF A-4K Skyhawks in Action[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWzwqzQhOs8"]YouTube - A4K Skyhawks - Weapons Range (New Zealand) (1997-99)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol76AtxIQzk"]YouTube - A4K Skyhawk: "Project Kahu" (1988) (1 of 2)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8_jZ08dWtc"]YouTube - A4K Skyhawk: "Project Kahu" (1988) (2 of 2)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm_4ge3Rf_w"]YouTube - A-4 Skyhawk training video 4/4[/ame]
 
Last edited:

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #239
Mb 339

I've emailed the opposition defence spokeman about the issues raised above regarding the MB-339 and Skyhawks.

He replied the "MB-339" are currently flying 20hours a month and the the Minister has said the NZDF can use them more boardly if they asked. He did not confirm the transfer of the A-4 to the ground training school, but that's not to say its not happening.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
Macchis

First 'public' acknowledgement RNZAF is at least considering the return of Macchi's. Should spark debate which can only be a good thing!

Obviously there is a lot to be sorted first - including cancellation of sales agreement - but we live in hope. I wouldn't get all excited about ACF either as it seems quite clear that the Macchis will only ever (if ever) return as trainers - and we all know Labour & National have poured ice-cold water on the ACF concept for the short to mid-term future.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10466333
 
Top