F16s For Ohakea?

[ErrolC]

Nov 26, 2009 8:13:23 GMT 12 Bruce said:

we NEVER had Airacobras - I would have thought the cabinet would know that....

True, but were there any USAAC ones allocated to the defence of Fiji at this time?

[Dave Homewood]

At that time New Zealand DID have Airacobras under its control. No. 70 Pursuit Squadron was based in Fiji from just after the US entry into the war, flying the P-39. As they were based on an RNZAF Station and in a New Zealand controlled region of the Pacific, at that early stage of the theatre of war they were under NZ contol, as were a flight of B-17's based there with our Hudsons. However it was not long before the whole region was turned over to US control. So they were not RNZAF Airacobras, no, but they were under our jurisdiction for the first part of their war. This is how my hero Eric Griffiths managed to get a posting to the unit from No. 4 (GR) Squadron, but sadly within days he killed himself by diving into a bure in a P-39. What a waste of a great life.

[phil82]

Now let me get my head around this Dave; you, by your own admission, have spent a lot of time in archives gleaning information which you accept as being one hundred per cent accurate.

There would appear, therefore, to be a slight inconsistency in that approach when faced with a document clearly put together by all the military staffs of New Zealand, discussed by the War Cabinet, before being released to our embassies in Washington and London, but which you seem to be suggesting is incorrect

That's a selective argument, because that communique exists, clearly, but rebuttal of it seems to be unavailable! Perhaps another visit to the archives is on the cards?

[Bruce]

Assuming the communique is genuine and accurate (Which is not necessarily the case - we are talking politicians here, who could be understating the NZ case as they were attempting to get additional US and UK support - including the new RADARs) that shows the situation in Early 1942 only - nothing whatsoever about subsequent developments, including the improvements of radar, communications and aircraft assets, which there is ample independant evidence to suggest occurred. Your point was that NZ NEVER had air defence - not pinned down to a specific date. I also suggest that you cannot claim such a system never existed just becuase it was never used in combat. By that arguement the mainland USA has never had an air defence system either as it has never (yet) been directly attacked by a hostile nation (except random balloon bombings). I actually find the assertion that NZ never had air defence capability to be on a par with our favourite "revisionist historians" and could be seeen in some quarters as an insult to the thousands of servicemen and women who served in that capacity. There is plenty of evidence in bricks, Mortar, aluminium and human flesh to confirm that at least at SOME point in time NZ had that capacity. good debate though!

[Dave Homewood]

Now let me get my head around this Dave; you, by your own admission, have spent a lot of time in archives gleaning information which you accept as being one hundred per cent accurate.

I have never stated that I believe archived material to be 100% accurate. that's an impossibility. At best archived RNZAF wartime records will tell only part of a story. They are usually accurate within the context of what they are recording but there is always margin for error and perhaps deliberate misrecordings.

There would appear, therefore, to be a slight inconsistency in that approach when faced with a document clearly put together by all the military staffs of New Zealand, discussed by the War Cabinet, before being released to our embassies in Washington and London, but which you seem to be suggesting is incorrect?

If you're referring to the letter you posted, I never once said it was incorrect. I said it was from early 1942 and 8 months later after much rapid development things were different.

You are digging a big hole in this thread now Colin.

That's a selective argument, because that communique exists, clearly, but rebuttal of it seems to be unavailable! Perhaps another visit to the archives is on the cards?

Rebuttal is unavailable? What do you mean? I never doubted it's accuracy. You decided to make it a selective argument by stating first a wide sweeping statement that we have never had air defence in New Zealand, which is clearly wrong. Then you have narrowed it to March 1942 when we clearly lacked air defence capability. You then rest on that, but disregard all the subsequent evidence presented that shows we did have an air defence in New Zealand at one time, countering your initial claim.

Admit you got it wrong and move on.

As for the archives I have never looked into fighter defence of New Zealand in archival records, my area of research has been reconnaissance bomber defence which was our main air defence, as described above. Feel free to visit the archives yourself to look for evidence to prove we never had air defence.

[beagle]

we are getting off track here now arn't we.

singaporeans basing a/c here.
Have got a reply back from a mate at RAAF Pearce (Perth) who stated that that he has not heard anything over there about the PC-21's moving out of there.
Apparantely the 20 or so Hawks they have there with 79 Sqn was talked about moving to East Sale but if that happened they were also looking at closing the base down. But that has all been canned now. Maybe that is where the rumour came from, as if they moved and closed the base, then the Singaporeans would have been looking for a base to operate from.

[yogi]

Thank you dave for a bit of information on the history of NZ air defence.
Which quite clearly did exist.

[ostinato]

Hey guys the subject is getting totally out of topic here. None the less some interesting info there dave.
Alright back on topic..F-16's rumour is incorrect.
Apparently singapore is currently looking for a fighter trainer replacement. At the moment this role is filled by the Skyhawks which are based in France. In the running is a Aermacchi M-346 and the Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin T-5. Lockheed is apparently proposing a tender based in Ohakea that could last 20 years.
The T-5 is a newly developed supersonic trainer. Pretty impressive.
If.. the proposal is successful (remember there is a long long way to go) they could be housed in 3sqn's soon to be "old" hangar, technical support would be commercial based (possibly good for jobs in nzl?).
Cant get too excited but if the singaporeans choose the T-5 aircraft (announcement possibly early next year) and the training tender goes ahead, we may soon have supersonic aircraft racing through our skies in 2 or so years!

[oldnavy]

Cant get too excited but if the Singaporeans choose the T-5 aircraft (announcement possibly early next year) and the training tender goes ahead, we may soon have supersonic aircraft racing through our skies in 2 or so years!

ostinato you are absolutely correct to not get too excited. No nation in its right mind should be entertaining this without a balancing locally owned force. My point remains, "you may soon have FOREIGN supersonic aircraft racing through your skies in 2 or so years!"

New Zealand!! I plead with you to be ultra careful with what you wish for. So many of you have written both in private and in public to tell me the state of your Air Force is terminally set on its present path by irreversible political and fiscal forces.

To my mind, a country as rich as NZ has absolutely no excuse to remain effectively disarmed. Dropping Mk 82 bombs and firing Mavericks from lumbering old P3s is not a viable alternative. Dreaming about attack helicopters is just further proof or how the Army has taken over the running of your defence budget! P3s and helicopters can only operate safely where air supremacy is assured. You already depend on that assurance from foreign powers. To entertain foreign jet basing in NZ you absolutely must have a cast iron treaty...AND some level of national ownership. If you can't afford to have ownership then stay out of it and stop wasting the money you already waste!

[skyhawkdon]

Nov 29, 2009 11:04:02 GMT 12 ostinato said:

Hey guys the subject is getting totally out of topic here. None the less some interesting info there dave.
Alright back on topic..F-16's rumour is incorrect.
Apparently singapore is currently looking for a fighter trainer replacement. At the moment this role is filled by the Skyhawks which are based in France. In the running is a Aermacchi M-346 and the Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin T-5. Lockheed is apparently proposing a tender based in Ohakea that could last 20 years.
The T-5 is a newly developed supersonic trainer. Pretty impressive.
If.. the proposal is successful (remember there is a long long way to go) they could be housed in 3sqn's soon to be "old" hangar, technical support would be commercial based (possibly good for jobs in nzl?).
Cant get too excited but if the singaporeans choose the T-5 aircraft (announcement possibly early next year) and the training tender goes ahead, we may soon have supersonic aircraft racing through our skies in 2 or so years!

This is pretty much exactly what I heard at Ohakea last week. Lockheed Martin are looking for a NZ partner in the deal which has the likes of Safe Air and Aeromotive who already have contracts at Ohakea very interested. Given Singapore's existing relationship with Lockheed Martin through their F-16s (don't underestimate the power of "relationships" in Asian counties ) I'd put my money on the T-5. The Macchi has just got in there so they have an easy looser in the competition!

[Naki]

Its KAI T-50 ain't it...not T-5

What do you mean by "easy looser"?

[skyhawkdon]

Yes it is T-50. Link to Lockheed Martin web site on it www.lockheedmartin.com/products/t50/index.html

My comment about the Aermacchi bid is based on my person experience dealing with Aermacchi on quality and supportability issues with the RNZAF 339CB. I doubt they are a serious contender for the Singapore contract, but in the interests of a fair and open tender process they are still in the running. When the RAAF was looking at a replacement for their old Macchi 326s the final competition came down to the Hawk and the 339. They made the right choice in going for the Hawk!

[sqwark2k]

Looks like a good sized machine, very similar lines to the F16 except for the dual air intakes.

[Naki]

It didnt stop the UAEF choosing the M346 over the KAI T-50 plus the UAEF had a strong Lockheed-Martin connection with 80 F-16E/Fs in their fleet.

I wouldnt discount the M346 at all despite RNZAFs exeperience with Aermacchi...the M346 is the leading contender in many advanced trainer comps and IMV will take over the Hawk as the best selling advanced trainer

[skyhawkdon]

Interesting, thanks for that info.

Just did some reading on the WWW and it doesn't sound like UAE have actually signed a contract yet - they are still in negotiations with Aermacchi.

Being twin engine it would be a good lead-in-trainer for the likes of the F-18. But being twin engined has its disadvantages - higher operating and maintenance costs, plus reduced range. It must be quite a rocket ship though with all that thrust available.

[SEAN]

Sorry, all I have is the photo image, and nothing else.

[SEAN]

Sorry, my bad wrong post.....

[Naki]

I guess the old SE v ME debate comes into play...whether the savings out weighs any possible increased airframe losses of a SE a/c.

Specs of M346:

General characteristics

Crew: two, student and instructor
Length: 11.49 m (37 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 9.72 m (31 ft 9 in)
Height: 4.76 m (15 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 23.52 m² (253.2 ft²)
Empty weight: 4,610 kg (10,165 lb)
Loaded weight: 6,700 kg (14,770 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 9,500 kg (20,945 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Honeywell F124-GA-200 , 27.8 kN (6,250 lbf) each
Performance

Never exceed speed: Mach 1.2 (1,460 km/h, 915 mph)
Maximum speed: 1,255 km/h (779.82 mph)
Stall speed: 166 km/h (104 mph)
Range: 1,890 km (1,181 miles)
Service ceiling: 13,715 m (45,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 6,401 m/min (21,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 285 kg/m² (58.3 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.84
Levelled speed record: Mach 0.96
Armament

Nine hardpoints for a variety of guns, bombs, rockets and missiles

Specs of the T-50:

General characteristics

Crew: 2
Length: 12.98 m (42 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 9.17 m (30 ft 1 in)
Height: 4.78 m (15 ft 8.25 in)
Empty weight: 6,350 kg (14,000 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 13,470 kg (29,700 lb)
Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.07 kN (11,925 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 79.1 kN (17,700 lbf)
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.4
Range: 1,851 km (1,150 mi)
Service ceiling: 14,630 m (48,000 ft)
Armament

Guns: 1× A-50 3-barreled 20 mm M197 Gatling gun
Rockets: LAU-3/68
Missiles:

Air-to-air: 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder
Air-to-ground: 6× AGM-65 Maverick
Bombs: 5× CBU-58 cluster, 9× Mk 82, 3× Mk 83/MK 84, and 9× Mk 20

Personally I would like like to see the TA-50 (the trainer/attack variant) in RNZAF service...especially if the MB339s are sold...but I am heading off thread topic.............

[Naki]

Note that the T-50 has an afterburner and its performace wil be greater than the M346.

[skyhawkdon]

The M346 has very similar speed and weight figures to the Skyhawk (with a bit more thrust available). The Skyhawk has better range and payload.

On paper the T-50 looks the better of the two (if you don't mind a single engine).