Aermacchi 339's and Malaysia

[Dave Homewood]

Wasn't Malaysia one of the countries that wanted to seriously purchase our Aermacchi fleet?

I note that Malaysia has now ordered eight MB-339CM's.

[skyhawkdon]

Yes Dave you are correct, this was discussed in an earlier posting a couple of months ago (may have been when you were "off line"). For what they are paying for 8 new 339's they would have been far better off with our 16 flyable second hand models.

[Dave Homewood]

Was it Malaysia's decision not to buy our ones, or NZ's?

[skyhawkdon]

It was Malaysia's decision.

[beagle]

jut found this on another forum



The 17 Aermacchi MB-339CB trainers are still flown by the RNZAF on a cyclical basis to keep them 'dust-free' for sale (about 1-2 week I'm led to believe). I also understand they're directed to keep things low key as they are (potentially!?!) very embarrasing to the Govt

Anyway, given that the opposition party's new defence spokesman has set the spark on considering the option of returning these to service to train Army & Navy in strike simulation etc etc, this got me wondering, would it be worth the cost?

Both the above training tasks could be performed by civilian contractors (on a more structured & regular basis than is currently the case) - so I was thinking about how they might add something more.

Okay - one obvious option is a light ground-attack role - but this is probably of little regional benefit!?! I'm not sure that would be worth the cost!

So what do you guys reckon about this - using them as a specialised Recon / FAC platform? (with obvious light attack capability if req'd and perhaps a couple of AIM-9's depending on sceanrio). Yes they'd need a bit of work to kit them out, but the basic platform looks up to it. Primarily get them operating in NZ; Aust; Pacific area where top cover is available - these scooters are a damned fine a/c but whether this is a capability the region really needs I don't know.

I figure they' be suitable platforms (although not ideal, but I'm arguing for retention of these a/c, not purchase of other types) tasked with FAC and Recon is situations where there is some heat. RAAF RF-111 are likely to be gone in a few more years and P3's are obviously not suitable down low!

They can be deployed at ferry range to Aussie; Sth Pacific etc & as they'd only deploy 2-3 at a time this could allow the RNZAF once again provide at least some useful regional airborne capability.

[Bruce]

The Leonard Manning incident in east Timor was a classic example of the Army deploying without adequate air support or FAC co-ordination. In that example, the patrol was engaged and pinned down by hostile troops (possibly even indonesian Army) that they could neither see nor identify, nor could they determine an adequate exit route. In Vietnam a FAC would supress the hostile fire and help mark a suitable escape path to a helo landing zone. I think the Macchi would be ideal for this sort of work, although adding a thermal imaging system of some sort would be helpful.

[beagle]

I also read the other day that when our guys first landed, there was the Frigate Canterbury in attendence as well as American and British warships, and an indonesian sub sailed rght under the Canterbury.
No doubt the aussies would have had one of their subs there watching for this and were tailing it but that would be all classified.
I am sure there were also Skyhawks and Hornets at Darwin.

[corsair67]

Yep, those 'clapped out' Skyhawks were up at Darwin alongside the Hornets at the time, I believe.

Of course, Helen doesn't like anyone to know this!

[beagle]

Also read that the F111's were also on ready action.
It probably was only one wee scuffle away and things could have been so much different

[corsair67]

I read that there was a bridge there that had Indonesians troops guarding one end and ANZACs guarding the other, and a few people reckon if not for the discipline and training of the ANZACs then all hell could have broken loose.

Apparently the Indonesians were constantly taunting the ANZACs trying to get a reaction from them.

[caromeg]

The concept of using a macchi as a fac platform is obsolete. Tactical UAV will give the land forces what they need. As a point of record the soldiers did and could always see and identify the militia, they were impeded by ROE and doctrine. Both were changed after the contact. A fast mover such as the macchi is also neither cost effective or configured to provide the capabilty to direct not just air assets (FAC) but the most effective offensive support -Artillery (FO)

[flyjoe180]

How about a unit of dedicated FAC aircraft then, like the Bronco or Pucara? Or even gunship helicopters. But how do you get them to the conflict area? It must be possible, the Argentinians managed to get their's to the Falklands (Maldives if youre an Argentinian) in 1982. The Macchi might still have a place for local (coastal) fleet defence or something.

[Dave Homewood]

Considering it has been said before on here that the Maachis cannot take off with weapons under their wings, they'd be rather useless as a combat aircraft. They were trainers, and it seems the RNZAF is now comfortable training aircraft without a jet conversion stage, so what use are they?

The only other use they'd be great for is painting them a bright colour and forming a recruiting display team squadron like the Red Arrows or Frecce Tricilori.

Otherwise, sell them and use the money to buy decent coastal defence reconnaissance bombers, like Vincents.

[skyhawkdon]

I agree with Dave - the Macchi's were a good advanced pilot and lead-in-fighter trainer - but they are not suitable as a combat aircraft. I also agree that UAV's would be a better FAC/recon platform in today's environment. However there is still a place for a true multi-role combat aircraft like the F-16 in NZ's order of battle. The flexibility, range and speed of these aircraft is necessary in a truly balanced defence force (don't forget where NZ sits in the world and the fact that we are surrounded by water, over which 90% of our exports and imports pass). Attack helicopters, UAV's and armed maritime patrol aircraft all have their place in a balanced force. Each performs a different mission and role but often in support of each other. Up until 2001 we had a small but balanced defence force. Now we have a very unbalanced one that has very little real combat capability. And certainly would have difficulty projecting that power far beyond the coast (the P-3's are only armed with ASW torpedo's and dumb bombs and the avionics upgrade they are about to get doesn't change that). We are now totally reliant on others to do the fighting for us. This is something that I am very uncomfortable with given our strained defence relationships with our tradition allies.

[Dave Homewood]

Don, I have to ask this, how do the other 10% pf our export/import goods get to/from NZ? I'm fairly sure all of it goes over the water - unless there are some tunnels we don't know about.

[skyhawkdon]

admin said:

Don, I have to ask this, how do the other 10% pf our export/import goods get to/from NZ? I'm fairly sure all of it goes over the water - unless there are some tunnels we don't know about.

I was talking $ value rather than volume. By volume it would be in the high 90's. 100% of it travels be either sea or air, both of which are highly vulnerable to disruption during a confrontation. That is why the US and Australia is so concerned about the growing military power of others in the region. You don't see Aussie reducing their combat capability like NZ. On the contrary they are greatly enhancing it. One of us has got it wrong... history will prove who was right and my money is on Australia!

[skyhawkdon]

beagle said:

I am sure there were also Skyhawks and Hornets at Darwin.

75 Sqn's Skyhawks were in Darwin for a planned Exercise just weeks prior to the actual landings, but had moved on to Malaysia when it all blew up. We remained on standby in Malaysia for weeks and eventually redeployed to Amberly where we were joined by three 2 Sqn Skyhawks from Nowra. However by then the "danger" had passed so we came home after a 9 week deployment.

There were armed RAAF F-18's and F-111's flying overhead CAP and FAC during the landings. Had the shooting started they would have kicked the Indonesian military's butt. The Indonesians knew that so didn't try it on (it is called deterrence). The fact that NZ had 14 fully combat ready Skyhawks in country would have also been known by the Indonesians, as was the fact that we could deploy them anywhere we wanted (we had been doing it through their airspace for 30 years). While not as capable as the RAAF F-18's they were certainly well aware of our capability in maritime and ground attack. Timor was as close as we got to using the A-4's in a shooting war, but just because they didn't fire a weapon in anger doesn't mean they didn't do their job. Again it was the deterrence factor at work. By at least having them available we had some say in the outcome. Now we have lost the ability to ever do that again.

[corsair67]

Don, although you don't need me to tell you this; you've hit the nail right on the head!

Deterrence is one of the most powerful weapons a country can possess, and now New Zealand no longer has that option if/when the need arises.

[Dave Homewood]

Another important factor for the NZ export and import industry is not the threat of a foreign power so much, but pirates. Pircay on the high seas is said to be steadily on the rise and is more and more technological. It will only be a matter of time before a NZ ship is attacked and when the mayday comes, is a slow lumbering frigate going to help? No.

[phil]

admin said:

Don, I have to ask this, how do the other 10% pf our export/import goods get to/from NZ? I'm fairly sure all of it goes over the water - unless there are some tunnels we don't know about.

My guess would be by air.