Royal New Zealand Air Force

[Tasman]

recce we never sent the combat wing overseas on any combat missions when we had them and I doubt that if we had a new combat wing thatg would ever go overseas either. Having an air combat force is pointless for NZ, the money is much better spent elsewhere.

In the 1950's New Zealand deployed 14 Squadron's Vampires, which were later replaced by Venoms, during the Malayan Emergency. In 1958 they were replaced by 75 Squadron's Canberras. I know that was a long time ago but it does demonstrate that New Zealand was prepared to commit its air combat force to anti terrorist campaigns in the past.

Having said that I accept that at present there are higher priorities for the Kiwi defence dollar than a new air combat force. However, as I've said before I would like to see the MB-339's reactivated so that fast jet skills are not lost and also to provide training support for the navy and army.

Tas

 

[stryker NZ]

i was just thinking about the P-3 replacement while reading one of the other threads, what about the Kawasaki P-1 or is japan still restricted from exporting military tech?

if not the P-1s are estimated to cost around 150 million each which so far is cheaper than the P-8, plus it is the basis for the next generation japanese transport plane the Kawasaki C-X which we could also get as a replacement for the C-130's

anyway just my thoughts

 

[recce.k1]

In the 1950's New Zealand deployed 14 Squadron's Vampires, which were later replaced by Venoms, during the Malayan Emergency. In 1958 they were replaced by 75 Squadron's Canberras. I know that was a long time ago but it does demonstrate that New Zealand was prepared to commit its air combat force to anti terrorist campaigns in the past.

True!

And I suppose it all really depends on whether the pollies want to deploy them. EG perhaps the Canberras and A-4's could have been deployed to Vietnam alongside the RAAF Canberras. But the NZ Govt at the time chose not to. But they sent pilots to fly with the RAAF UH-1's and as FAC's with the US - but that's another story.

Apparently the upgraded A-4's were under consideration for participating in GW1 and were on stand-by in SE Asia if things escalated during the East Timor intervention, and apparently on stand-by again in SE Asia when Afghanistan was invaded to oust the Taliban. Again these were not common knowledge amongst the public at the time. The public thinks the A-4's did very little, and that they were limited to spending their time flying around in circles around the NZ countryside They were actually kept at a high operational level of capability, along with the SAS and Frigates, ready to be used at any time should the circumstances have permitted them in a regional context

And that was 75 Sqn. Meantime 2 Sqn at Norwa were training up pilots on being very effective ship killers. Very useful skill for NZ to have in a regional or local context, being a maritime nation.

Anyway time to move on, the ACF is gone. Once the govt decides to up-arm the P-3's NZ will have an effective maritime defence capability again etc.

 

[MrConservative]

One of the reasons behind leasing the F-16s was not only to provide an Air Component contribution to the regional security architecture, it was also to be able to provide an air component for UNSC mandated no-fly zones amongst other related roles. By the way 'Stryker NZ', the Kawasaki C-X would be a very capable aircraft but New Zealand would never be able to afford it let alone procure one due to Japans constitutional restraint on military exports. Most Japanese defence items though they have great capability have an additional purpose which is to maintain the domestic defence industry industry and are funded as such through allocations from their discretionary Zaito budgets. For instance the Mistubishi F-2 (Essentially an enlarged winged F-16 with a domestic avionics fit) was costing the equivilent of well over $US100 million per unit, where as if they imported a US built F-16 it would be at least half that. Also you have to remember the the price the JSDF pay for defence items is not a true indication of the actual cost.

 

[recce.k1]

Skyhawk update

Latex coating for Skyhawks

By ANNA WALLIS - The Marlborough Express | Tuesday, 9 October 2007
http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlbourghexpress/4231483a6563.html

The air force is to come up with some prophylactic paint to protect its Skyhawks when they are put outdoors.

The 17 jets stored in hangers at Woodbourne are to be given a white, weatherproof latex coating to prepare them for a life outside.

The Skyhawks have not been used by the air force for six years and pending sale to an American buyer have been stored at Safe Air at Woodbourne. But the hangars are now required for work on the air force's Hercules fleet.

Spray-on latex is commonly used by air forces around the world for aircraft in outdoor storage because its weather proofing protective qualities, said the air force.

In a statement, Chief of Air Force Air Vice Marshall Graham Lintott said the jets would be "well looked after" while outside and would not degenerate, compromising the sale.

The alterations to the Skyhawks old home will begin next month with the Hercules due to arrive mid 2008.

"The preparation of the hangar for the Hercules Life Extension project is a real milestone.

"The project will significantly improve the availability and reliability of the RNZAF Hercules fleet and ensure it continues to comply with evolving air traffic control regulations."

The Skyhawks have been stored at Safe Air at Woodbourne since the combat wing was grounded.

The move by the Labour government was controversial, but National has since said it would not restore the wing.

The government has been trying to sell the planes to a private buyer in the United States but has yet to gain US State Department clearance to do so.
The sale is being handled by Robert Pigou of Ernst & Young who last month said talks were continuing.

"It's progressing. As the minister has said, it's an issue that the US is dealing with at the moment and that's where the matter lies," he said.

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

The planes were mothballed in 2001 after Miss Clark said they were "clapped out".

A United States buyer was lined up but State Department approval has held up the $155 million sale and it looks increasingly unlikely to go through.

The planes will not be going back into hangars once the work on the Hercules fleet is completed because they are still expected to be sold, a defence ministry spokesperson said yesterday.

He said once the planes were outside they would be able to be seen from the road and the air. There was speculation the planes would be covered up or camouflaged once outside.

The planes are expected to be put outside after being painted in the next two or three weeks.

 

[Tasman]

He said once the planes were outside they would be able to be seen from the road and the air. There was speculation the planes would be covered up or camouflaged once outside.

What on earth for? What does it matter if they can be seen if they are not operational or "of interest to serious buyers?"

Tas

 

[MrConservative]

Maybe someone wants to hide an embarrassment of huge political proportions? What Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister might call a cover up? Interesting how Belgium has just sold excess F-16's to Jordan. No trouble there with the US State Department. The whole thing is a farce.

 

[recce.k1]

What on earth for? What does it matter if they can be seen if they are not operational or "of interest to serious buyers?"

Maybe someone wants to hide an embarrassment of huge political proportions? What Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister might call a cover up?

There's speculation on another NZ aviation forum from someone in the know, that the intention is to surround them amongst stacked shipping containers. I cannot believe it is the RNZAF willingly wanting to do this. Presumably it's a directive from the civie MoD from their pollie masters? "What on earth for?" is a good question, if it happens it is more than a farce, it is entering the realm of the absurd and paranoia!

Personally I'm hopeful they won't be like that for too long. If Santa visits the Govt saying the State Dept will approve the sale, then they will be gone. On the other hand if the sale ain't going to happen (my reckoning) then the sooner the Govt face up to one or two day's worth of media embarrasment saying the sale is off would allow some real decisions to be made eg pass them onto the ground crews for maint training or putting in museums etc. The more the Govt plays this along the worse it will be for them politically and PR wise.

On the other hand again the more the pollies drag this out the easier it will be for the pollies to blame the State Dept holdups for the A-4's starting to deteriorate and thus not be worth selling/buying/flying and then actually scrap them, which is something the PM said for the first time was an option a few months or a year ago now etc.

Interesting how Belgium has just sold excess F-16's to Jordan. No trouble there with the US State Department. The whole thing is a farce.

And you never know, with the Govt's good relations with the EU, if they stuck to keeping the A-4's until 2007 and replacing them with second hand F16's (as Nat proposed before the US F16 lease came along) then perhaps some Beligum fighters may have headed our way! Speculation none the less but interesting to ponder for a few seconds!

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Well put stuart, we don't now nor have we ever really needed a combat air wing to defend NZ,

Ahh, thats not really what I was saying. What I was getting at was justification, not if we should have that capability or not. And we have needed the capability in the past, namely when enemy warships were operating in our waters, laying mines and sinking ships in Hauraki Gulf and the Tasman sea. Shame we let those Wellington bombers stay in Britain, might have saved some lives from the enemy here in NZ.

what we do need is maritime patrol aircraft, probably a few more than what we currently have. I think what we should do is tag onto any Australian order for the P8, when they retire their P3's sometime next decade.

See above: Why? Whats the strategic justification for P8's?

That's a much better use of our resources than fighters which really only give the public something to look at at airshows.

A bit glib, that comment? Do you know what the rational was for the purchase of fighter/bombers was in the first place?

 

[MrConservative]

That would be the Cambridge site would it Recce? At the end of the day the fictional sale of the A4's, in fact the whole saga, is to quote the late Justice Mahon "an orchestrated litany of lies." Foreign military were never really interested. Why should they be when you read the report below. Draw your own conclusions.

Royal Netherlands Air Force offers surplus F-16s to Chile and Brazil

October 8, 2005 (by Lieven Dewitte) - The Chilean air force is in negotiations for the acquisition of 20 to 28 surplus Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16s. The aircraft are needed to replace Chile's entire fleet of ageing Mirage-5MA and Mirage- 50C/FC aircraft, which are expensive to operate and maintain.

Although the recent purchase of five South African Cheetah airframes for spares has helped to ease the situation for Chile, the Mirage fleet replacement is becoming an urgent matter.

The Royal Netherlands Air Force has also renewed an offer to Brazil for 14 F-16 Mid-Life Upgrade fighters at a cost of $5 million per aircraft. However, the FAB seems to favour a $73 million offer from the French government to lease 12Mirage 2000C fighters equipped with R550 Magic II short-range AAMs and Super 530 medium-range AAMs.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

recce we never sent the combat wing overseas on any combat missions when we had them

So? I think you are forgetting why that capability existed and the strategic issues surrounding its continued maintenance.

and I doubt that if we had a new combat wing thatg would ever go overseas either.

And if it did not? so what? depending on the strategic considerations at the time perhaps that may well be a foolish thing to do, as I believe having our only effective air strike arm overseas was in 1939, although its a moot point now.

Having an air combat force is pointless for NZ, the money is much better spent elsewhere.

But Why is it pointless? Saying that its pointless is only a rational thing to say if you understand why we had the capability in the first place and can show why that historical reasoning is no longer relevant.

 

[recce.k1]

Woah, $5m (US$? - ~NZ$7m?) per F16! Makes one want to cry! Maybe Defence Minister Goff should stop harping on about the $1b cost to re-establish an ACF (that cost being the aircraft only) as being unaffordable when the PM is quite chummy with many EU PM's and Presidents and would probably welcome dealing with NZ due to our good diplomatic relations. Then there could be the French option too! Or Markus's Grippen! Nevermind Santa won't be visiting us this year anyway!

Yes Cambridge (Wings over NZ - thanks Jase) - sorry we're not allowed to cross link to other forums I think! Need to be vague etc.

 

[MrConservative]

Goff is quoting new Block 60 / Grippen prices. There have been a number of lease to buy deals for surplus F-16's around the globe this decade. Poland was offered 18 ex AMARC Block 15 MLU's with conversion training and I think Falcon Up for 100 million over 5 years + 5 not long after our deal was cancelled. They went with 48 new builds in the end. Italy went for a full a 34+4 deal - Block 15 MLU 10 year lease to buy under the Peace Ceasar contract that gave them the full monty package including conversion training, parts, weapon systems and the Falcon Up upgrade for US$777 million (or $77 mil per year). There was also the Chile deal in which an FTA miraculously followed soon after. Funny that!

 

[regstrup]

Interesting how Belgium has just sold excess F-16's to Jordan. No trouble there with the US State Department. The whole thing is a farce.

The Belgian F-16's were build under license in Europe, but New Zealands A-4 were bought from the USA. So prehaps there is not the same restrictions on the Belgian F-16's as on the A-4 ?

But it could of course also be, because Belgium is a member of NATO and is not selling their F-16 to a private compagny but to another close allied of USA ?

 

[MrConservative]

Obviously a less problematic situation in terms of end user approval. And rightly so! NZ ought to have had no problem with US approvals for their surplus A-4's - even to Hoss Peterson's US based private training organisation - had they bought the F-16's. No other country would want the A-4's when there are far more attractive deals out there. No doubt Third World countries that would possibly like to get hold of some A-4's would never get US end user approval anyway. Yesterday the NZ government announced an $8.7 Billion dollar surplus (currently $34 Billion over the last 3 years). So maybe the "loss" of a $155mil contract is inconsquential to them I suppose. We didn't enter into the F-16 deal because we were told we couldnt afford them. We did get a very good National ballet, orchestra and opera company out of the money saved.

 

[swerve]

The Belgian F-16's were build under license in Europe, but New Zealands A-4 were bought from the USA. So prehaps there is not the same restrictions on the Belgian F-16's as on the A-4 ?

But it could of course also be, because Belgium is a member of NATO and is not selling their F-16 to a private compagny but to another close allied of USA ?

No, a MLU F-16 is more restricted than the NZ A-4s. Being licence-built makes no difference. The (also licence-built) MLU F-16s the Netherlands sold to Chile had to have a couple of pieces of equipment removed before the US would permit the sale. I don't know if that's true of those sold to Jordan.

The private company in question was set up by ex-US Navy officers, & there was already a similar private company operating A-4s in the USA, so I don't think it being a private firm was the problem.

It's all rather vague. From online gossip at Pprune & the like, it appears that the company, Tactical Air Services, was set up by one of the founders of ATSI ( http://www.atsifightertraining.com/aboutus.html ), a bloke called "Hoss" Pearson (former USN "Blue Angels" pilot, selected for astronaut training but never got into space) - photo here - http://www.skyhawk.org/5e/g153660/html/153672m3.htm . Some sort of falling out between him & the other founder? ATSI operated a dozen or so ex-Israeli A-4s, but now seems to have either folded, or nearly so. See comments & pictures here -
http://rnzaf.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=Postwar&action=display&thread=1152773038&page=12

I think TAS may never have actually got the money together. It probably depended on a training contract that didn't materialise. Pearson probably needed to show he had aircraft lined up before anyone would negotiate seriously with him over training, & couldn't afford to pay anything for the aircraft until he had the training deal, & the dots never quite joined up. Since ATSI has run out of business, it looks very much as if they never will. The NZ govt. should give up, & give the Skyhawks to museums. Nobody's ever going to buy them.

Maybe the MB.326s could be sold, for parts if nothing else, but not to TAS. TAS seems to have been a firm set up to allow its head to continue flying jet fighters, rather than a realistic business. Pearson has been involved in other short-lived enterprises operating old jet fighters. Just can't let go of his dream.

 

[recce.k1]

Geez I wish our pollies could just be honest for a change and say "we got rid of the ACF because our anti-Vietnam & anti-US imperialism upbringing from our 60's activist days. We didn't want them then and we were obliged to get rid of them now as we had to payback our extreme left wing coalition partners etc" instead of making things up like A4's being "clapped out", "other nations will get rid of their ACF's too as they are no longer required", "niche capabilities", "can't afford them", "we live in a begin strategic environment", "never been used in action", "20 A-4's or F16's for that matter wouldn't be any use if were ever invaded by China". Words to these effect, were said! It's basically treating the public like children, and when they get caught out my estimation of them sinks further! Nevermind let's see what the future holds!

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Belgian F-16's were build under license in Europe, but New Zealands A-4 were bought from the USA. So prehaps there is not the same restrictions on the Belgian F-16's as on the A-4 ?

But it could of course also be, because Belgium is a member of NATO and is not selling their F-16 to a private compagny but to another close allied of USA ?

No, the US FMS sales specifically apply to any US weapons systems sold to country "A". Once the asset has been deregistered from active service, then country A must still get State Dept approval to onsell.

Sometimes this is a cosmetic issue. Eg asset is transferred on paper to State Dept and then onsold to country B. (maybe minus some of its original acoutrements). Country A then shift asset direct to Country B without the asset having to physically go back to the US for stripping of sensitive parts. Normally however, the asset will go back to the US anyway for refurb of some sort (eg, typically this happens with C130's etc...)

In effect, FMS is effectively a compulsory buyback before onsell.

 

[recce.k1]

It's all rather vague. From online gossip at Pprune & the like, it appears that the company, Tactical Air Services, was set up by one of the founders of ATSI ( http://www.atsifightertraining.com/aboutus.html ), a bloke called "Hoss" Pearson (former USN "Blue Angels" pilot, selected for astronaut training but never got into space) - photo here - http://www.skyhawk.org/5e/g153660/html/153672m3.htm . Some sort of falling out between him & the other founder? ATSI operated a dozen or so ex-Israeli A-4s, but now seems to have either folded, or nearly so. See comments & pictures here -
http://rnzaf.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=Postwar&action=display&thread=1152773038&page=12

Phew, it took a while to find it (your last link above I mean - it seems cutting and pasting URL only displays the thread's homepage etc).

For the thread on ASTI that Swerve is referring to, click on his last link above to get to the various threads homepage, select to go to page 4 (at the moment, it will shift around depending on whether someone there posts again etc), select the thread "Latest on Skyhawk Sale", go to page 12 of that particular thread to see pictures and comments on some rather dilapidated A4's!

 

[swerve]

Phew, it took a while to find it (your last link above I mean - it seems cutting and pasting URL only displays the thread's homepage etc). ...

Sorry about that. I didn't try going back to it via the link.