|
Post by beagle on Feb 7, 2007 21:31:30 GMT 12
I was interested in information on our F 16 purchase, and sadly, it's cancellation. How far down the road did we go. I remember we had set up a team from high ranking officers down to technicians at Sgt level to look into all aspects of the aircraft. I have seen images of them in the desert and in a hangar. How many did we get out of the desert before it stopped, how far into a servicing did they get, did any get to a test flight status. Did we have pilots doing flying training.
Pretty sure they would have given the RAAF Hornet pilots a bit of a fright, and a licking..........
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 7, 2007 22:01:26 GMT 12
I Know it cost the tax payer approx 17 million dollars in cancelation charges....It so annoying when she hired Derek Quigley (ACT) to wiggle out of the deal and he recommended just to purchase less...1 squadron of 12....Her main ambition has always been to make the RNZAF nothing more than than a transport rescue organisation. Remember she also wanted to replace the Orions with civil leased aircraft but was overruled by cabinet as the report stated that upgrading the P3 was the most inexpesive and sensible solution....stupid b
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Feb 8, 2007 6:46:00 GMT 12
There was a small RNZAF engineering and logistics team working in the States and a much larger Project Team in Wellington when it was cancelled. I don't believe any work had started on the aircraft, but it was well advanced in its planning. 75 Sqn OFC - Sqn Ldr Ted Tyrell (spelling?) had been selected as the lead RNZAF pilot and was preparing to shift over there with his family. I think he was going to an ANG Sqn. Positions for the technical training in the States had been advertised but no one had been told who was successful. Once Labour won the 1999 election the writing was on the wall and it wasn't a surprise to anyone on 75 Sqn when it was cancelled. We all thought "Oh well, at least we've still got A-4's and they'll be good for another 7 years or until the next election..." Little did we know what Helen had in stall for us next!
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Feb 8, 2007 7:51:20 GMT 12
Slightly off topic but I was never keen on the F16 , it smacked of political expiedence and cost cutting .In my view we would have been much better off getting F18s , more capable of doing the job required and compatable with our obvious ally . But thats just my view .
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 8, 2007 9:39:19 GMT 12
But more expensive to operate and own. The F-16 has the same advantges (Eg the USAF) but a much larger pool of operators and numebr of aircraft in service than the F/A-18. Plus the Ex USAF aircarft sititng in the desert arn't as likely to be as crapped out of the USN aircraft sitting there.
Realsisitcally though, cost of owneship for the F-16 would eb lower than the Hornet. Plus is jsut looks better :-)
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Feb 8, 2007 9:40:37 GMT 12
Slightly off topic but I was never keen on the F16 , it smacked of political expiedence and cost cutting .In my view we would have been much better off getting F18s , more capable of doing the job required and compatable with our obvious ally . But thats just my view . But the F-16 was THE DEAL OF THE CENTURY - 28 almost unused airframes for NZ$13M a year (lease), verses NZ$1B+ for 12 new build F-18's. Better to have a flight line full of serviceable F-16's than only half a dozen serviceable F-18's. The F-16 is also cheaper to operate than the F-18 (only 1 engine). While 2 engines is a nice to have for safety I believe the reliability of the F-16 engine was at least as good as the A-4's J-52 and we never never lost an A-4 during an overseas transit and only lost 3 aircraft (07, 08 & 03) due to an engine related problem in 30+ years. In all those cases it wasn't the core engine that let us down - all were due to failures with ancillary systems (oil and fuel systems). Given our engine expertise and high maintenance standards the pilots could have high confidence in operating a single engine aircraft (just like they did with the A-4). In terms of infrastructure and facilities to support the F-16 much of it was the same as the A-4 (Avionics and armament wise at least), where-as the F-18 would have been all new. In my view the F-16 was THE aircraft for NZ - small, cheap but highly capable - just like the A-4.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 8, 2007 11:42:52 GMT 12
and if they ever looked at get the ACF back up thent he F-16 still is the best aircraft for NZ
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Feb 8, 2007 16:10:11 GMT 12
Just a pity ifwe did, we could not get the same deal as those aircraft are now at Top Gun I believe.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 8, 2007 16:39:37 GMT 12
F16 V F18 with the aussies and kiwi flying oppposite types would have better than the Ranfurly shield in combat training etc....The only prostest march I ever joined organised by SOS ( save our squadrons) up queen street to the town hall. Has anyone got a score by score comparison between the two types ie size, speed bombload and avonics?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Feb 8, 2007 17:47:31 GMT 12
I agree that the F16 deal was cheap , probably why it is operated by countries we should be at least wary of . I believe we should be playing our part in our own defense and common sense would suggest compatability with the Aussies rather than say the Singaporeans would be wise . As to the single over twin engine argument , I think we did very well with the A4 but we are an island and there is safety in numbers . I go along with the Boeing airliner executive who once said when asked why he always travelled in four engined airliners "Because Boeing do not make a five engined one. "
|
|
|
Post by Damon on Feb 8, 2007 19:39:27 GMT 12
What plans does a National lead Govt. have in the maintainance of our AirForce? No hope of bringing back the Air Combat Force? Too bad about the F-16's.
|
|
|
Post by Damon on Feb 8, 2007 20:01:34 GMT 12
Would have been Great to have seen the F-16's here. May I suggest the Gripen as a new replacement for the A-4's. I saw one display at an airshow in Sweden.Awesome!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 8, 2007 20:18:57 GMT 12
In the original plans, was No. 2 Squadron to continue serving at Nowra with the F-16's in support of the RAN? Or would they have been recalled to NZ?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 8, 2007 21:08:33 GMT 12
The public on the whole especialy female voters have no interest in foreign affairs and defence ...just what benefits they can get from others in breeding..etc ..that said national will never bring defence into an election agenda,,,we just bludge on australia who spend doulble as a percentage of GDP on defence....yet 15 years ago or so we were spending close to 2% of GDP on contributing to our old regional mates....how things chage so quick.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 8, 2007 21:19:56 GMT 12
But Steve, if this is the case, and we're still all sleeping reasonably safe in our beds, the government here is not going to want to change it no matter who gets in. Not spending money and being secure is better than spending lots and being just as secure, to them.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 8, 2007 21:45:01 GMT 12
Yes Dave from a polical view point you are correct...however as a New Zealander I feel ashamed on how little we spend with these hugh surpluses to by votes,,,national may be slightly better ...not by much though...I would be happy with a half a percent increase in defence spending over 5 years not ten...The navy has done welll but some sort of air to ground support is required and would show our neighbours that even though we have no obvious threats a scirmish with aus is also a fight with our guys.l ( a little like the A4s moving north in AUS just in case)
|
|
|
Post by phasselgren on Feb 9, 2007 6:11:53 GMT 12
May I suggest the Gripen as a new replacement for the A-4's. I saw one display at an airshow in Sweden.Awesome! If the impossible happens and your governement change their mind about the Air Combat Force the Swedish Air Force has about 60 surplus Gripens for sale. If no costumer can be found these aircraft will be scrapped.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Feb 9, 2007 6:43:45 GMT 12
In the original plans, was No. 2 Squadron to continue serving at Nowra with the F-16's in support of the RAN? Or would they have been recalled to NZ? Yes 2 Sqn was to operate F-16's from Nowra (the car ports that were built at Nowra in 2000 had F-16's factored into their design). The plan was for 75 Sqn to convert to them first at Ohakea and sort out all the issues associated with bringing a new aircraft type into service, while 2 Sqn continued doing the RAN contract with the A-4's. 2 Sqn would then convert to the F-16 and return their A-4's to NZ for disposal. At the time The Phillipines were looking like buying the A-4's so there was talk of 75 Sqn running conversion courses for their pilots and ground crew, initially at Ohakea and later in The Phillipines. It would have been a very busy (but exciting) time - handing the A-4's over to someone else while bringing a new aircraft into service.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 9, 2007 10:44:01 GMT 12
Thanks Don. Interesting times it would have been.
I guess if it had all happened, the USA wouldn't have been sticking its unwanted nose in over the A-4 sale either, as the F-16 deal was doing them a huge favour and saving them from an ongoing political embarrassment - which Clark then a,plified by cancelling the sale.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Feb 9, 2007 14:21:36 GMT 12
Thanks Don. Interesting times it would have been. I guess if it had all happened, the USA wouldn't have been sticking its unwanted nose in over the A-4 sale either, as the F-16 deal was doing them a huge favour and saving them from an ongoing political embarrassment - which Clark then a,plified by cancelling the sale. Yes the Yanks were right behind the deal to sell the A-4's to The Phillipines - they were going to provide the cash to do it even. An interesting, but not widely known fact was the A-4's were to be sold to The Phillipines for NZ$200M (in 1999 $). They were of course fully operational and supportable then. Today they are virtually worthless and unsellable because they are non operational and the people and infrastructure to fly and maintain them are gone. The $200M we were going to get for them would have paid for almost all of the F-16 regeneration and set up costs (including support equipment, training, weapons and spares) which was $230M from memory. Hence the whole deal was going to cost the NZ tax payer virtually nothing! Just a paltry NZ$13M per year lease cost, which was about the same amount in Capital depreciation charge the A-4's were costing us anyway! Somehow this cost neutral fact got "lost" in the subsequent political debate and Labour's lies about the whole deal costing NZ$1B were picked up by the media and believed by the public. It sucks when you think how many tens of Billions of $ Labour has run up in surplus' since and how many Billions they have squandered on doubtful social re-engineering policy. It also makes the 8 NH-90's at close to $1B look mighty expensive - or looking at it the other way 28 F-16's look bloody cheap!
|
|