|
Post by FlyNavy on Feb 4, 2009 11:20:21 GMT 12
Well at least Heather has been honest (to make up for previous porkie). A seven year hiatus in 'this sale' of your Skyhawks is laughable. And I have stopped laughing because now these magnificent aircraft, in great condition but now deteriorating, languish outdoors in your Kiwi weather. It ain't the high desert of USofA at AMARC.
|
|
|
Post by yak2 on Feb 4, 2009 11:54:02 GMT 12
Well at least Heather has been honest (to make up for previous porkie). A seven year hiatus in 'this sale' of your Skyhawks is laughable. And I have stopped laughing because now these magnificent aircraft, in great condition but now deteriorating, languish outdoors in your Kiwi weather. It ain't the high desert of USofA at AMARC. Or the semi desert of Tyabb. But we will take one for you if it helps.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Feb 4, 2009 12:10:36 GMT 12
How long is Tyabb's runway? ?
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 4, 2009 12:26:46 GMT 12
What exactly are these circumstances? I expect an aircraft that is ready for sale to be in tip top shape and stored appropriatley.. When they wraped those things in condoms they said they would be protected.. I kind of EXPECTED what they told us was true...
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Feb 4, 2009 17:07:19 GMT 12
Not even considering corrosion, just remembering the A4 hydraulic and electrical systems, and how they used to thrive on activity whilst being recalcitrant if left lying around for much more than a weekend, I wouldn't want to be either: a) the engine dudes made responsible for recovery to serviceability or b) the pilot flying for about the first 10-20 hours post recovery It's sad to say, but after such a long time off and the arrival of many F16As and Bs on the second hand market, I reckon private collections and museums should be consulted before flying them again. The aeroplane type was brilliant in its day and it is sort of insulting to the breed for them to be left so superfluous and officially unloved...
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Feb 5, 2009 18:27:32 GMT 12
Hi. New member and first post. Just wanted to mention from a legal perspective (which I sadly know more about than piloting unfortunately) how the former ACW aircraft were in fact never "sold" as is widely reported by the media.
In September 2005 all that was agreed upon was a Heads of Agreement, which basically is a starting point in a contractual negotiation. Quite often a heads of agreement status is used as a holding position until one party in an agreement can raise finance or prove to a potential tenderer that they can perform a contract.
So my take on this whole disaster is this. TAS signed a heads of agreement with the hapless Ministry of Defence for the sale of the A4's and Macchi's. This was to serve two objectives for TAS.
1. Secure potential financing. 2. Demonstrate to a potential contractual tenderer (UAE Govt for instance) that they have the aircraft to be taken seriously in the performance of a tender.
From what I am able to gather, the UAE Govt's flight training contract was signed in early 06. This would mean that the Heads of Agreement was void by that date (They usually are for a specified time anyway). The question then is why didn't the Defence Minister / PM at that time announce to the public that the HoA was over? Why did they continue to deceive the NZ public that the deal was still on after that point?
I feel that TAS really had no intention of actually buying the former ACW aircraft, even if they had won the contracts / tenders they were attempting. The so called deal or HoA was just window dressing done by TAS. Better and more suitable aircraft were no doubt to be targeted at a later date. For instance one of the more successful companies in this air opposed force / training field (name alludes me at present but they are based in Jacksonville) I understand, was able to purchase F-16A/B aircraft either ex Belguim or the Netherlands at USD$5million a piece (similar to what the Jordanians have bought from the RNAF recently). TAS knew by entering into a HoA and not constructively negotiating any further towards a signed agreement, they could walk out anytime from the negotiations with the NZ Govt and have no legal repurcussions unlike not fufilling a contract. TAS might have been a one man band company with big ideas and dreams, but they certainly had fair sharper legal advice.
There really needs to be a proper Royal Commission of Inquiry regarding the whole issue of the ACW ending and the following nonsense and deception of the last 7 years. I am afraid the final ruling will be not unlike Justice Mahon comments concluding the Erebus Inquiry. "An orchestrated litany of lies."
This is actually a fascinating mystery, in trying to unveil the real truth of the mothballed ACW.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Feb 5, 2009 19:20:29 GMT 12
Welcome to the forum corokid66. I like your take on the sorry saga of the ACF disposal. I think you will find it was Labour who announced they were "sold" (via a press release from then Defence Minister Mark Burton in Sept 2005, just before the election), and I think you are spot on about it being nothing more than a HoA which seems to have been rolled over and over and over rather too many times to be taken seriously! Would the name of the company that alluded you be ATAC (Airborne Tactical Advantage Company)? They are the second interested party in the Skyhawks and Macchis behind TAS. They already have a large contract with the US military and currently have 4 leased ATSI Skyhawks in their fleet, plus several other A-4L and TA-4J Skyhawks under restoration/in storage.
I agree that there are now newer and better aircraft (like F-16's) available on the international market for these sort of contracts. Why anyone would want our Skyhawks and Macchis after all these years is beyond me. Either they haven't done proper due diligence on both fleets or they are doing exactly what you suggest. There are also a lot of 3rd parties with a self interest in the saga dragging on and on. Without me naming names I think you can work them out from previous posts on this subject!
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Feb 5, 2009 23:34:19 GMT 12
Well Don, I have looked into company registeries in the US and in particular Arizona and Florida awhile back and came across an outfit called AeroGroup Inc of Melbourne Fl which had an Arizona subsidary called Tactical Air Services. Dug around a little further and in July of 2006 AeroGroup Inc along with its subsidary TAS was sold involving all assets and debts and became part of a new venture Tactical Air Defence Services Inc which involved a shift to Denison in Grayson County Texas. The CEO of Tactical Air Defence Services has been listed as a Mr Alexis Korybut. In October 2007 a Mr Brad Baker who incidently is a former advisor to Gov Jeb Bush of Florida joined the company board. Larry Peterson who was the individual fronting the short lived TAS was no longer listed as involved in the new company as a director. Whether or not this company has changed its name to ATAC or that it is another outfit completely, I will have to look into that. What I do know was that this TADS company was looking into securing two Mig 29's for the combat training role according to the Wall St Journal. If they are using these aircraft now or aiming to, they have seemingly think they will have no problem getting US State Department approval for this.
The question I am wondering is - is this TADS the TAS you are saying that are interested in buying the ACW again. That is intriguing if it is the case. I think you are right in saying that our mothballed aircraft cannot be seriously regarded in the 2nd decade of the 21st century. I think people down this part of the world should not get to excited, that includes Ms Roy. I am gobsmacked by the sense of unreality and incompetence within what passes for advice regarding defence in general these days. Even if a new "deal" is made NZ will have to pull something out of the hat to get the manderins in the bowels of the US government to look upon it favourably.
How not to get US State Dept approval indefinately is for a smaller estranged nation to cancel a specially crafted F16 deal that has been used by the US as the big diplomatic "test" to allow it if the test is passed to return to the inner circle regarding the re-establishment of defence, trade, intel and technology tie ups. NZ politicians have been simply naive. They didn't get it. Unfortunately they may never will.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Feb 5, 2009 23:36:29 GMT 12
There really needs to be a proper Royal Commission of Inquiry regarding the whole issue of the ACW ending and the following nonsense and deception of the last 7 years. I am afraid the final ruling will be not unlike Justice Mahon comments concluding the Erebus Inquiry. "An orchestrated litany of lies." This is actually a fascinating mystery, in trying to unveil the real truth of the mothballed ACW. Never heard/thought about that before ..... but what a brilliant idea! Now if the new Govt were cunning, and wished to discredit the former Govt/PM's handling of the issue or better still the former Govt's Defence Strategy (which ironically the new Govt were forced to swallow prior to the recent election so as not to scare the horses), and/or possibly even lay the ground work for a future option to restore an ACW of sorts, a Royal Commission tasked to investigate such areas such as the one dimensional and unsubstantiated reasons (the former PM & DefMin used to give to the media) that were used to justify the disbandment of the ACW and associated skilled engineering, weapons and support trades; the lack of robust public analysis on the implication to NZ's foreign affairs standing in the eyes of our closest trading partners (eg Aussie, Singapore, US etc); the lack of proper public input and independent advice/formal review etc; the absolute inability to defend NZ's shores (and territories) from any type of surface threat for the first time since prior to WW2; the insinuations that the ACW's aircraft were clapped out when in fact the ACW were some of the most experienced and skilled ship-killers in the world; the undermining of NZ's ability to assist to defend Australia (and thus potentially NZ) if regional powers resort to war; the effect it has had on RNZAF retention and recruitment; the effect it has had on an already stretched RNZAF (due to supporting regional and international committments) whereby certain trades are understaffed and with no leeway to bring in ACW support crews if necessary etc; the fact that an affordable ACW is possible using modern second hand aircraft to meet regional defence obligations (rather than enforce UN no fly zones with expensive high tech state of the art allied air forces etc); what else, the farce and dishonesty of the sale and conditions in which the A-4's were stored and not kept operational to ensure they could be quickly re-sold (or be re-generated due to a change in the international political scene eg 9/11 especially has left NZ exposed to air-terrorism threats); what else
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Feb 6, 2009 0:38:51 GMT 12
Royal Commissions of Inquiry (think Winebox, think Erebus) are the only way you can put the blow torch to anything in a legal sense to get proper accountability. No one can hide from them, former or even current ministers can be cross examined. All those reasons you have got there Nige are fairly sound reasons for a RCI to go ahead into the whole ACW saga. But unfortunately a RCI is unlikely and any real change in defence focus wont happen until we lose serviceman in a combat operation. As for disbanding the ACW as an anology, it is like deciding to remove the emergency wards from our hospitals or jails from the justice system. I dont think we have the sustainable defence force that mets New Zealands needs that Mr Burton promised. I dont think the new lot gets it as well with this niche force rubbish that Mr Mapp is spouting out lately (after the treasury books were open). I also dont know if there will be an honest assessment in the proposed White Paper. Facing facts if there was future threat to New Zealand that was slightly above the capabilities of ourselves to handle independently, New Zealanders will have to realise that the "rescuing or assisting" parties will want to extract their price comensurate to their cost and more, depending what they need. Its an old lesson called real politique.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Feb 6, 2009 8:48:17 GMT 12
Facing facts if there was future threat to New Zealand that was slightly above the capabilities of ourselves to handle independently, New Zealanders will have to realise that the "rescuing or assisting" parties will want to extract their price comensurate to their cost and more, depending what they need. Its an old lesson called real politique. Couldn't the White Paper devote some time & space to analysing the implications of calling in the ADF or US Armed Forces to defend NZ against threats (or modern asymetrical/terrorism air/sea threats) eg the time factors involved (after an incident/loss of life) which could take days/weeks (and we unfortunately incure further loss of life); the costs in money terms to deploy an overseas AC Sqn and support logistics here (after all the media love "monetary figures" - it's something tangible that they can make their readers/viewers/listeners relate to etc); the lack of infrastructure to support such a deployment (ie apart from Ohakea, maybe Whenuapai) versus the costs to keep a modest Sqn of Macchi lead in trainers and second hand F16's in the RNZAF inventory ($80-100M/year for the original F16 proposal)? In terms of the "sale", that really was an appauling farce if the situation was, no other country was seriously interested in the ACW aircraft and instead a private training company exploited a then desperate NZ Govt wanting to save face and be seen that it had a "serious" bidder. That really was public deception and spin on a grand scale. If we can't have a RCI then where are the media's investigative reporters digging up the facts and exposing them? [Where are these so-called defence commentators/reporters/anaylsts who always write long critical opinion pieces diguised as fact to further their (anti) defence agenda, such as the likes of Nicky Hager, Gordon Campbell and other such tossers that have appeared out of nowhere at critical times to discredit ANZUS, ACW, Project Sirius P-3 Orion upgrades?!! Surely if they were objective, which they proclaim themselves to be, then a factual analysis of the ACW saga would be a fascinating exercise for them on how Politicians deceive the public over matters of national importance etc. As for National's wishy-washy posture, hopefully a White Paper will give us, the public, an opportunity to remind them to get back on track to have a balanced force which actually was niche, i.e. the ACW would be a niche force to assist the ADF to defend Australia etc. Anyway the White Paper was initially reported as to consult with friends and allies, so I'm optimistic that this time, unlike in the previous 9 years, greater emphaisis will be placed on the wisdom of overseas defence and govt experts and their input etc. But we need public buy-in, greater need muct be made to explain/remind the public (and thus to counter critics) of how a stable SE Asia is critical to NZ's economic well-being. Ditto the defence of Australia and how NZ plays a small but important part. For this new Govt, it has to realise that the current world economic situation gives it a fantastic opportunity to explain to NZ'ers how economic stability overseas is critical for successful NZ exports and thus jobs etc. This is already happenning in other areas such as Emission Trading Schemes and the like, the public can now grasp that beyond the Green Party rhetoric of cutting emissions that for NZ to do so, so quickly, will result in economic decline (i.e. higher operating costs for businesses, lost opportunities, more unemployment etc). NZ's small contribution to regional stability was in their form of a balanced but niche small force comprosing of an ACW, P-3 Orions, the NZSAS and a fighting Frigate force. The last Govt cut the ACW and initially looked like they were going to do the same for the P-3's and killed off the third option on an ANZAC Frigate (despite the huge economic advantages that resulted in NZ participating in the ANZAC Frigate building-project - do we think the Aussies will be as generous next time when ANZAC-II project is started, due to the Politicians not keeping their commitments to NZ's 4 ships etc)?!! That leaves the hard working SAS to fullfil NZ's contribution to overseas events, oh, and ever so ironically under Operating Enduring Freedom and Operation Troy, under the previous Govt, saw the deployment of both Frigates and a P-3 to the Middle East. There would have been no reason to doubt a RNZAF F16 Flight (if the original lease programme had been allowed to continue) could have been an option to be deployed to Afghanistan, at least the Govt would have had choices rather than rely on wearing out the SAS or now be sucked into a never ending NZ PRT Deployment that is stretching the Army to breaking point, along with its other deployments in Solomons and Timor (and previously Tonga etc).
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Feb 6, 2009 9:57:58 GMT 12
"Where are these so-called defence commentators/reporters/anaylsts who always write long critical opinion pieces..." Get Carlo Kopp to do an "analysis" of the situation for you. It will be a ripper. He would rather not characterise it as an 'opinion piece' however. ;D
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Feb 6, 2009 14:25:02 GMT 12
Facing facts if there was future threat to New Zealand that was slightly above the capabilities of ourselves to handle independently, New Zealanders will have to realise that the "rescuing or assisting" parties will want to extract their price comensurate to their cost and more, depending what they need. Its an old lesson called real politique. Couldn't the White Paper devote some time & space to analysing the implications of calling in the ADF or US Armed Forces to defend NZ against threats (or modern asymetrical/terrorism air/sea threats) eg the time factors involved (after an incident/loss of life) which could take days/weeks (and we unfortunately incure further loss of life); the costs in money terms to deploy an overseas AC Sqn and support logistics here (after all the media love "monetary figures" - it's something tangible that they can make their readers/viewers/listeners relate to etc); the lack of infrastructure to support such a deployment (ie apart from Ohakea, maybe Whenuapai) versus the costs to keep a modest Sqn of Macchi lead in trainers and second hand F16's in the RNZAF inventory ($80-100M/year for the original F16 proposal)? In terms of the "sale", that really was an appauling farce if the situation was, no other country was seriously interested in the ACW aircraft and instead a private training company exploited a then desperate NZ Govt wanting to save face and be seen that it had a "serious" bidder. That really was public deception and spin on a grand scale. If we can't have a RCI then where are the media's investigative reporters digging up the facts and exposing them? [Where are these so-called defence commentators/reporters/anaylsts who always write long critical opinion pieces diguised as fact to further their (anti) defence agenda, such as the likes of Nicky Hager, Gordon Campbell and other such tossers that have appeared out of nowhere at critical times to discredit ANZUS, ACW, Project Sirius P-3 Orion upgrades?!! Surely if they were objective, which they proclaim themselves to be, then a factual analysis of the ACW saga would be a fascinating exercise for them on how Politicians deceive the public over matters of national importance etc. As for National's wishy-washy posture, hopefully a White Paper will give us, the public, an opportunity to remind them to get back on track to have a balanced force which actually was niche, i.e. the ACW would be a niche force to assist the ADF to defend Australia etc. Anyway the White Paper was initially reported as to consult with friends and allies, so I'm optimistic that this time, unlike in the previous 9 years, greater emphaisis will be placed on the wisdom of overseas defence and govt experts and their input etc. But we need public buy-in, greater need muct be made to explain/remind the public (and thus to counter critics) of how a stable SE Asia is critical to NZ's economic well-being. Ditto the defence of Australia and how NZ plays a small but important part. For this new Govt, it has to realise that the current world economic situation gives it a fantastic opportunity to explain to NZ'ers how economic stability overseas is critical for successful NZ exports and thus jobs etc. This is already happenning in other areas such as Emission Trading Schemes and the like, the public can now grasp that beyond the Green Party rhetoric of cutting emissions that for NZ to do so, so quickly, will result in economic decline (i.e. higher operating costs for businesses, lost opportunities, more unemployment etc). NZ's small contribution to regional stability was in their form of a balanced but niche small force comprosing of an ACW, P-3 Orions, the NZSAS and a fighting Frigate force. The last Govt cut the ACW and initially looked like they were going to do the same for the P-3's and killed off the third option on an ANZAC Frigate (despite the huge economic advantages that resulted in NZ participating in the ANZAC Frigate building-project - do we think the Aussies will be as generous next time when ANZAC-II project is started, due to the Politicians not keeping their commitments to NZ's 4 ships etc)?!! That leaves the hard working SAS to fullfil NZ's contribution to overseas events, oh, and ever so ironically under Operating Enduring Freedom and Operation Troy, under the previous Govt, saw the deployment of both Frigates and a P-3 to the Middle East. There would have been no reason to doubt a RNZAF F16 Flight (if the original lease programme had been allowed to continue) could have been an option to be deployed to Afghanistan, at least the Govt would have had choices rather than rely on wearing out the SAS or now be sucked into a never ending NZ PRT Deployment that is stretching the Army to breaking point, along with its other deployments in Solomons and Timor (and previously Tonga etc). Gordon Campbell is just a hack, he is not an expert on defence matters just a lefty journo. I dont think we have any specialist defence reporters in the MSM. Though I was suprised that the rotund Chris Trotter recently on his blog, took to lamenting the loss of the Skyhawks. The economic downturn is not particularly good for NZ as we rely on exports and imports. Worringly, that is the big 'out' clause for the current government to not do anything worthwhile in its White Paper. Logically they could argue they can not afford it. However, history tells us that following an economic depression or prolonged recession their tends to be geo-strategic instability leading to military conflict due to a myriad of reasons a few years later. e.g Europe in the 1930's and Asia in the 50's. History has this funny way of repeating itself.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Feb 6, 2009 16:10:26 GMT 12
Well Don, I have looked into company registeries in the US and in particular Arizona and Florida awhile back and came across an outfit called AeroGroup Inc of Melbourne Fl which had an Arizona subsidary called Tactical Air Services. Dug around a little further and in July of 2006 AeroGroup Inc along with its subsidary TAS was sold involving all assets and debts and became part of a new venture Tactical Air Defence Services Inc which involved a shift to Denison in Grayson County Texas. The CEO of Tactical Air Defence Services has been listed as a Mr Alexis Korybut. In October 2007 a Mr Brad Baker who incidently is a former advisor to Gov Jeb Bush of Florida joined the company board. Larry Peterson who was the individual fronting the short lived TAS was no longer listed as involved in the new company as a director. Whether or not this company has changed its name to ATAC or that it is another outfit completely, I will have to look into that. What I do know was that this TADS company was looking into securing two Mig 29's for the combat training role according to the Wall St Journal. If they are using these aircraft now or aiming to, they have seemingly think they will have no problem getting US State Department approval for this. The question I am wondering is - is this TADS the TAS you are saying that are interested in buying the ACW again. That is intriguing if it is the case. I think you are right in saying that our mothballed aircraft cannot be seriously regarded in the 2nd decade of the 21st century. I think people down this part of the world should not get to excited, that includes Ms Roy. I am gobsmacked by the sense of unreality and incompetence within what passes for advice regarding defence in general these days. Even if a new "deal" is made NZ will have to pull something out of the hat to get the manderins in the bowels of the US government to look upon it favourably. How not to get US State Dept approval indefinately is for a smaller estranged nation to cancel a specially crafted F16 deal that has been used by the US as the big diplomatic "test" to allow it if the test is passed to return to the inner circle regarding the re-establishment of defence, trade, intel and technology tie ups. NZ politicians have been simply naive. They didn't get it. Unfortunately they may never will. The plot thickens! AeroGroup is a name I am also familiar with. They were restoring a bunch of old A-4C/L Skyhawks in the US (I think they were origanally bought by Malaysia in the 1980s but never ended up being delivered). AeroGroup also have an airworthy TA-4J Skyhawk flying in the US. I believe ATAC have since purchased these ex Malaysian Skyhawks from AeroGroup (these are the aircraft I referred to in my earlier post) with the intention of using them for their USAF aggressor training contract, but I think they needed so much work to get them back in the air they flagged the idea and have leased 4 ATSI A-4Ns instead. You could check the FAA aircraft registration database and find out which company or individual currently own A/TA-4s in the US. That may add a few more pieces to the puzzle! I believe Hoss Pearson's TAS was only ever a paper company and he had tried to secure several cornerstone shareholders, including the Aermacchi parent company and after that fell over there was another company (the name alludes me at the moment) which actually advertised for RNZAF Skyhawk and Macchi experienced technicians to work in the US, but that was probably 2-3 years ago now. I sent them my CV and never heard back. Same for ATAC and ATSI over the last 8 years! You'd think if they were serious about buying our A-4s they would be interested in my skills and knowledge of the aircraft! I also emailed ATAC in early 2008 after I heard they had been at Woodbourne looking at the A-4s and offered my services to assist them do due diligence, but again never got a reply. The whole thing smells (REAL bad in my opinion)!
|
|
|
Post by fletcherfu24 on Feb 6, 2009 20:55:11 GMT 12
Most likely outcome....
|
|
|
Post by nige on Feb 11, 2009 11:32:56 GMT 12
I was reading a political blog recently and it stated "....the proposed FI6 fighter deal with US. Eventually the deal was scrapped by the Labour government. Had the deal gone ahead, our old Skyhawk jet fighters would have gone to the Philippines military".
Can anyone confirm that the blog author's assertion (that the Skyhawks were to be sold to the Philippines) was in fact correct? Or was it more the case that the Philippines showed an interest?
(Sorry, as I think this may have been mentioned before, a year or two ago, here on this forum, perhaps by Don)?
Anyway what intrigues me is that if it were true that the Philippines were going to take the Skyhawks if the F16 deal went ahead, why then didn't the Philippines buy the Skyhawks when the air combat force was disbanded and were put up for sale?
Unless perhaps, the Philippines were cash strapped and they couldn't afford to purchase the Skyhawks outright after their disbandement (or deemed there were other competing priorities etc) whereas if the F16 deal went ahead, maybe there was an agreement in that deal whereby the US State Dept (etc) would in essence transfer the Skyhawks to the Philippines (probably at nil or marginal cost, thus making it attractive to the Philippine Govt etc)?
Or perhaps, post ACF disbandment, there were other reasons such as, maybe the US State Dept didn't actually want NZ to "sell" its Skyhawks whilst there was a possibility a change in Govt in 2002 or 2005 may have seen the ACF restored.
Anyway more than anything I'm curious as to the accurracy of the political blog author's statement etc.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Feb 11, 2009 14:25:01 GMT 12
I was reading a political blog recently and it stated "....the proposed FI6 fighter deal with US. Eventually the deal was scrapped by the Labour government. Had the deal gone ahead, our old Skyhawk jet fighters would have gone to the Philippines military". Can anyone confirm that the blog author's assertion (that the Skyhawks were to be sold to the Philippines) was in fact correct? Or was it more the case that the Philippines showed an interest? (Sorry, as I think this may have been mentioned before, a year or two ago, here on this forum, perhaps by Don)? Anyway what intrigues me is that if it were true that the Philippines were going to take the Skyhawks if the F16 deal went ahead, why then didn't the Philippines buy the Skyhawks when the air combat force was disbanded and were put up for sale? Unless perhaps, the Philippines were cash strapped and they couldn't afford to purchase the Skyhawks outright after their disbandement (or deemed there were other competing priorities etc) whereas if the F16 deal went ahead, maybe there was an agreement in that deal whereby the US State Dept (etc) would in essence transfer the Skyhawks to the Philippines (probably at nil or marginal cost, thus making it attractive to the Philippine Govt etc)? Or perhaps, post ACF disbandment, there were other reasons such as, maybe the US State Dept didn't actually want NZ to "sell" its Skyhawks whilst there was a possibility a change in Govt in 2002 or 2005 may have seen the ACF restored. Anyway more than anything I'm curious as to the accurracy of the political blog author's statement etc. Yes the Skyhawks were going to the Philippines as part of the F-16 deal. It was a US State Dept. FMS (Foreign Military Sales) deal and they were providing the finance (NZ$200M) to make it happen. The $200M sale price was to be used by NZ to offset the F-16 regeneration, spares, training and support equipment costs, effectively making the F-16 deal nil cost (a fact lost on Labour in all their spin about the cost of the F-16 deal). In Sept 1999 the Philippines Air Force came to NZ and inspected/flew the aircraft and on 75 Sqn's return from our annual exercise Vanguard in Malaysia in Oct 1999, we (8 Skyhawks, 2 Hercs, a P-3 and a 727) all came home via Manila where they inspected the aircraft and watched many HUD videos of our Skyhawks killing Malaysian Mig-29s, Hawk 100s, F-18s, F-5s, Singapore F-16s, F-5s and A-4s, RN Harriers and RAAF F-18s in the previous 8 weeks! I was in the room when this was shown to the Philippine F-5A pilots and they were highly impressed with the capability of the Kahu kit! Moving on... when the F-16 deal was canceled in 2000 so was the Philippine deal to buy the A-4's. In 2002 the Philippines AF again came to NZ to look at both the Macchis and Skyhawks, but it never went any further. When they visited Ohakea in 2002 they were clearly still very interested in the Skyhawks as their original F-5As had very poor serviceability.
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Feb 11, 2009 16:35:43 GMT 12
H/T to 'FlyCookie' for this gem URL: bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2009/01/foreseeing-unforeseeable.htmlForeseeing the Unforeseeable Friday, January 2, 2009 Chris Trotter ...."Should it suddenly get noisy – how is New Zealand placed? The answer, sadly, is "not well". Most New Zealanders have experienced an enormous feeling of pride at what our troops have accomplished in East Timor. But New Zealand's professional soldiers are only able to perform so creditably in that theatre (with military equipment inferior to that issued to the Australian territorials!) because of the superb training they have received as part of a fully integrated military force. By decommissioning the combat wing of the RNZAF, the Labour-Alliance Government has fundamentally compromised the future combat readiness of our defence force. Without the contribution of close-air-support training, the capability of the New Zealand infantryman and woman will rapidly diminish. Our future ability to inject and extract military personnel into and out of combat zones - without sustaining heavy casualties - has been seriously degraded by the Government's decision to scrap the Skyhawks. At this point in any dispute over New Zealand's military posture, someone inevitably throws down the challenge: "So, who is going to attack us? Who should we be preparing to fight?" It is a challenge that politicians, academics, and "responsible" journalists are loath to answer for fear of sparking a diplomatic incident, or being branded that most risible of creatures – a "conspiracy theorist"."....
|
|
|
Post by Tonys18 on Feb 11, 2009 17:38:33 GMT 12
Hi there!
I think the skyhawks should still be flying, not getting cut up or sold or whatever, why not have a open door saying new zealand free for the taking? But then again who will attack us and who wont? The future will tell.
I think we need some sort of a jet fighter at least, but then again I geuss the cost is to much for our country.
This thing about the skyhawks reminded me of a video I saw from an e-mail off a mate who was unhappy about the skyhawks ending. when I find it I might put it on.
Why did they ground the skyhawks anyway? Trying to be a peaceful nation? I dont know how it came to be so if someone could tell me how? Money?
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Feb 11, 2009 19:40:28 GMT 12
If you were around in 1970 you would have seen Helen Clark protesting and throwing rocks at them as they were towed to Whenuapai. All she did was bide her time until she became PM and she could get her own way!
|
|