|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 1, 2009 7:15:11 GMT 12
I find it very difficult to accept with the drying up of venture capital financing in the US to a trickle that this deal will take-off for the original full price of NZD155m less regeneration costs. However I also think there is a very unsavoury desperation to just get rid of these aircraft. To fire sale them and end once and for all this Mickey Mouse episode in the Ministry of Defence’s history. In all likeliness this so called deal is currently being renegotiated for a lot less than originally thought. That would not surprise me one bit. It’s my hunch that it’s just the Macchi’s they are really after with the unregenerated A-4’s to be thrown in for free so they are literally off the NZDF premises? It just wouldn’t surprise me that the whole deal is to be done for less than $US35m. The government spin will be “the market for the aircraft has slumped since 2005, we’ve got a great price for the macchis and the skyhawks, this is a great deal blah, blah, blah…. This is the last roll of the dice. If this deal goes sour then it is time for no more BS from politicians and officials. Time for the truth to fully emerge. That was one of the questons TV One asked me but they didn't include in the final cut! In fact out of 10 questions I was asked they only used one of them in the story... GGGRRRRR. My answer was pretty much along the lines he knows he is the only "serious" (take that with a grain of salt!) buyer, the Gov't is desparate to get rid of them, their condition is a lot worse than the salesmen made out 8 years ago... I'll give you 5 bucks for the lot.
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Nov 1, 2009 17:06:34 GMT 12
I find it very difficult to accept with the drying up of venture capital financing in the US to a trickle that this deal will take-off for the original full price of NZD155m less regeneration costs. However I also think there is a very unsavoury desperation to just get rid of these aircraft. To fire sale them and end once and for all this Mickey Mouse episode in the Ministry of Defence’s history. In all likeliness this so called deal is currently being renegotiated for a lot less than originally thought. That would not surprise me one bit. It’s my hunch that it’s just the Macchi’s they are really after with the unregenerated A-4’s to be thrown in for free so they are literally off the NZDF premises? It just wouldn’t surprise me that the whole deal is to be done for less than $US35m. The government spin will be “the market for the aircraft has slumped since 2005, we’ve got a great price for the macchis and the skyhawks, this is a great deal blah, blah, blah…. This is the last roll of the dice. If this deal goes sour then it is time for no more BS from politicians and officials. Time for the truth to fully emerge. That was one of the questons TV One asked me but they didn't include in the final cut! In fact out of 10 questions I was asked they only used one of them in the story... GGGRRRRR. My answer was pretty much along the lines he knows he is the only "serious" (take that with a grain of salt!) buyer, the Gov't is desparate to get rid of them, their condition is a lot worse than the salesmen made out 8 years ago... I'll give you 5 bucks for the lot. Cool where do I send the cheque Don? ;D Typical media just pick and choose what they think is "news" worthy. You came across well in the interview, not at all like someone who lives in a small room with a cat and a computer for company and thinks man didn't land on the moon ha ha. Well done! Be interesting to see what comes to pass.
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Nov 1, 2009 18:10:19 GMT 12
The comment that Mr Pearson was used to taking risks because he was once head of the Blue Angels. Surely in a precision aerobatic team like the Blue Angels the aim for the leader is all about minimising risks, not taking them? Also I see no relevance in dredging up something from his personal life that occurred in 1991 and has nothing to do with his current capability to purchase our aircraft or to maintain his aviation business. Such muckraking shows journalistic desperation in trying to get a point across. The guy's history is very relevant, it is an indication of his trustworthiness, for a guy trying to swing a deal like this you would want to know that he would stick by his word and "play by the rules" as it were, episodes like that, even though it was some years ago, show that he is prepared to lie and cheat to get his own way. Now Dave, even though you think he is OK, and before you jump up and down about me calling him a liar and a cheat ask yourself this. Would he have been likely to say to his wife "I'll be late home from the flight line tonight dear, I have a date to hump my young attorney first"? I don't think so! He would have dreamed up a lie to cover his absence. If he lies like that what else does he "fabricate reality" about? I certainly wouldn't buy a used car from him.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 1, 2009 18:44:35 GMT 12
I never said I thought he was ok, I don't know the guy from Adam. I just don't see the relevance of something outside his work life that occurred 18 years ago.
Perhaps you have more information than I do, I didn't even know he was married. I don't know if he was lying to his wife. Maybe he was. Maybe the other party was lying to her husband instead. No idea. But it's not that relevant. We don't have to trust the gy any further than him paying the moiney owed. I'm sure Treasury will ensure that he has the money available to hand over before they pack the aircrfat up and send them, so where's the issue??
He is obviously considered trustworthy and secure enough by the US Government to be allowed to work as a test pilot on the Stealth programmes, (if the TVNZ article is correct). They would thoroughly check out people's backgrounds before they got near such a project.
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Nov 1, 2009 19:18:01 GMT 12
wait..... thats not a skyhawk! maybe they are trying to get the NZ public subconsciously used to the gripen....... haha! btw, great work on the interview don pity they didnt use a little more of you in the article, i'm sure the NZ public could have used an injection of your knowledge and opinion on this topic!!
|
|
|
Post by motoxjase on Nov 2, 2009 5:22:50 GMT 12
Slightly of subject but still involves Safe-Air and Skyhawks, I was talking to a mates father yesterday who is heavily involved in the process regarding the Brazilian Skyhawks and he reckons it should be known by the end of the week if Safe-Air has been awarded the up-grade work by Embaerer (pardon my spelling) which if it happens means up to 4 years work so hopefully we will have Skyhawks doin the rounds over Blenheim in the future
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 2, 2009 6:40:39 GMT 12
The Brazilian upgrade work will will be done in Brazil not NZ. If they get the contract (which I really hope they do) it will take all their Skyhawk experienced guys away for 4 years. Which leaves Hoss and the NZ Gov't with a wee problem... who is going to put our Skyhawks back together??
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 2, 2009 10:09:52 GMT 12
This shows how short sighted we have all been (NZ that is) on the whole A-4 saga. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world and as a Pilot I always leave the tending of the pixies under the hood to the erks that know what they are doing. RNZAF ground crew (and NZ Industry) in spite of everything, have maintained P-3s, C-130s and A-4s well beyond the life of other armed forces. I think the NZ tax payer owes them a few beers, in any other country we would be onto our second Herc fleet 10 years ago!! (my own grandiose estimate). This draws me to the conclusion that we have some of the best engineers in the world. A smart plan would have generated the global centre of excellence in A-4 maintenance and the guys wouldn't be going to Brazil rather the birds to NZ for work. Comes back to my earlier statements, - we would not have been the only country in the world operating the A-4. I'm sure Argentina Brazil and Indonesia would be very greaful for new parts and expert assistance to keep their fleets going a bit longer to give them more time to save for replacement. Alas we will send Kiwis offshore and there will be someone looking over his shoulder - writing things down.
|
|
|
Post by motoxjase on Nov 3, 2009 4:35:55 GMT 12
The Brazilian upgrade work will will be done in Brazil not NZ. If they get the contract (which I really hope they do) it will take all their Skyhawk experienced guys away for 4 years. Which leaves Hoss and the NZ Gov't with a wee problem... who is going to put our Skyhawks back together?? Thats what I thought Don but when I asked about that he reckoned the work would be done here, I think our wires might have been crossed and gotin mixed up during our conversation. Your right regarding who would work on the Skyhawks as we both have some good friends who are involved with the A4s but really Safe-Airs work force aint that big and Ive got some freinds who have lefted or leaving to work over in the Middle-East and at the same time Safe is gearing up to do the work on the Herc and Orions. busy times ahead for the RNZAF retirement village.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 3, 2009 6:46:17 GMT 12
They may do some of the design and fabrication work here but I doubt very much the actual aircraft will come here to be upgraded. My understanding is they are just subcontracting to the prime contractor. With the Herc and Orion upgrades also being done at WB they have no hangar space for 12 Brazilian Skyhawks, let alone 17 NZ ones! If you hear any more about them getting the Brazilian contract let us know.
|
|
|
Post by stu on Nov 4, 2009 13:14:10 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Nov 4, 2009 14:42:40 GMT 12
I found these while rummaging through my archives today.... Comic cuts
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 4, 2009 14:58:54 GMT 12
If it cost $150 million to maintain the Skyhawks per annum as Burden, sorry Burton says, and by cutting them it saved $870 million over ten years, then where did the remaining $630 million go?
Surely they didn't ground the combat wing simply to pay for the other upgrades out of that $630 million? These upgardes (which should have been replacement programmes!!) would surely have already been well budgeted for over several years, such things are not something that suddenly happens and the Government has to suddenly make cuts elsewhere for? Or is that how bad the Treasury and MoD are??
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Nov 4, 2009 16:15:52 GMT 12
If it cost $150 million to maintain the Skyhawks per annum as Burden, sorry Burton says, and by cutting them it saved $870 million over ten years, then where did the remaining $630 million go? he had to take his wife on a few world trade trips.
|
|
|
Post by vgp on Nov 4, 2009 16:46:11 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Nov 4, 2009 17:00:46 GMT 12
The HMNZS Charles Upham was out transporting citrus in the Mediterranean. At least it was making some money and earning it's keep instead of being parked up and costing everybody millions of dollars in parking and storage, and possibly regeneration so they can be sold.
|
|
|
Post by sqwark2k on Nov 4, 2009 17:21:52 GMT 12
Heard from NZDF HQ source last night that a clause of the sale is that each aircraft is to be regenerated and made servicable with a minimum of 100hrs before next scheduled maintenance. And the NZ Government will not sell the 2 fleets seperately. It's all or nothing.
That's gonna cost a bomb.....
|
|
|
Post by eieio on Nov 4, 2009 20:42:59 GMT 12
All or nothing is not the way I would sell my best cow and my worst one,poor bloody taxpayer!
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 4, 2009 20:49:13 GMT 12
Those are interesting letters Stu, thanks for sharing them.
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 5, 2009 15:42:21 GMT 12
I thought I would look up at Curtis v Minister of Defence [2001] CP235/01 which was the Judicial Review that tried to stop the ACF being disbanded. Of course it was held that it was not a legal issue but a political one. I wont paste the whole case here for you but what’s interesting are the following comments made in the applicant’s submission:
[9] Air Marshall Ewan Jamieson who was Chief of Defence staff from April 1983 to October 1986, emphasises the nature of "an armed force" and emphasises that it is the principal duty of any Government to provide for the security of the nation, and that legislative provision is common to all countries who raise and maintain armed forces, to deter and if necessary oppose by force of aims, any threat to the nation or interest vital to its security. He says that if the defence force is to be raised and maintained, then each of the three armed forces, must be capable of carrying out a series of functions reflecting their ability to defend the nation, and protect its vital interests. In his view, the defence of New Zealand and the protection of the interests of New Zealand, and the contribution of forces under collective security treaties, require all three armed forces to be trained and organised and to be capable of engaging and armed combat. His affidavit generally, contains a persuasive and no doubt commonly held view, as to the purposes of armed forces, and the need for them to be maintained at the appropriate operational strength. He emphasises, and our history hardly requires this reminder, the unpredictability of future defence needs as witness the World Trade Centre destruction as further indications of the uncertain climate in which we live, and the need to be prepared to defend ourselves at all times. He says that Air Combat capability has been a long and important part of the ANZAC security relationship, and has enabled the country to contribute to the five power defence arrangements.
[10] Finally, he said:
To sum up, the decision by the government to disband the fighter and fighter training squadrons and not maintain the Orions' ASW capability effectively removes the "armed" element from the Air Force. It can no longer satisfy the first three purposes specified in the Act. It can no longer contribute to the armed defence of the New Zealand or its interests. It can no longer provide combat capable assistance in collective security or the support of our treaty or other arrangements.
The armed combat function has historically been reserved to the Crown. In the case of the RNZAF, it is this that the New Zealand government proposes to abolish. Following the decision to abolish all of its combat capabilities the Air Force can no longer be described validly as an armed force able to satisfy the purposes specified in the Defence Act.
[11] That view is supported by Mr G C P Hensley, a former head of the Prime Minister's Department, and Secretary of Defence.
Wasn't it that following this case Mortica of Mt Albert called Jamieson and Hensley geriatric Generals?
|
|