|
|
Post by mumbles on Jun 15, 2006 23:36:01 GMT 12
Apologies if this has been aired already, but was any BVR capability planned (either air-air or air-surface) for the RNZAF F-16's? Or were they just going to stick with Sidewinders and Mavericks? Just idly wondering (as you do).
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2006 3:17:32 GMT 12
just getting 28 leased F16s with 24 opereational was the big deal....and it was a excellent deal from the yanks....I believe that the doctrine of minimal credible defence expenditure would have been followed which meant transfer of existing stores and a life test fireing when the blue moom was sighted.....only guessing here....wish i was wrong!
|
|
|
|
Post by xr6turbo1 on Jun 16, 2006 3:21:39 GMT 12
I agree it would have been great to see them operating in New Zealand at all and its a shame to see the A-4s and Macchis not doing much of anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 16, 2006 14:30:30 GMT 12
Were they going to be a simple lease? I thought the deal was more like a Rent-to-Own deal like with televisions, wasn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 16, 2006 15:53:21 GMT 12
Good question, Sam; maybe Phil might be aware of what was going to happen as regards BVR weapons? As to the leasing issue, I believe it was a ten year lease with an option to purchase the aircraft at the end of the intial 10 year lease period. A bloody good deal in my opinion, but completely screwed up by Labour!  Even though they were F-16A models, the Pakistanis had requested that a higher powered engine be installed, so would have certainly been pretty nippy little jets. I understand that some (if not all) these particular Vipers have ended up being operated as aggressors with the US Navy: but don't quote me on that! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 16, 2006 16:22:33 GMT 12
Yes it certainly was a very good deal, and was welcomed by the USA because the agreement got them out of a nasty political situation with Pakistan, then Helen dropped them back in it.
What surprised me was how the whole deal was signed and sealed, and then renegged on by NZ. Did we have to pay penalty payments?
There was a photo of an F-16 in RNZAF colours flying over Ruapehu floating around just after the deal was done. It was photoshopped obviously. Does anyone have that?
One of the best things i saw after helen soured the deal was a cartoon from one of the daily newspapers with two boxes. On the left it said 1941. Labour PM Peter Fraser standing shaking his fist at the sky and the quote from him uttered after the Crete fiasco "Never again will New Zealand troops go into battle without adequate air cover". In the right hand box it had 2001, Helen looking self-righteous, and sayng "Never again will New Zealand troops go into battle with adequate air cover."
AKE AKE KIA KAHA
Forever and Ever Strong...
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jun 17, 2006 12:20:22 GMT 12
Yes. it was a good deal, but regardless of the type of aircraft, what the deal meant was we maintained that essential infrastructure of running such aircraft with all that that involved. Helen the protester destroyed that in a single-minded obsessive manner.
Trying to predict future conflicts is about as reliable as predictions about the dollar or the sharemarket. We have no way of knowing where the next challenge may come from, but in that respect the post-war RNZAF has never been more than a nucleus of a trained force which nevertheless had the capability to expand. Helen removed that.We have always paid our dues and pulled our weight, with other air forces, in other conflicts, but now we are free-loading, and that doesn't sit easy on Kiwi shoulders. Prudence, experience, and the almost unanimous judgment of our friends all point to a significant risk of conflict sometime in the future. We cannot wave a piece of paper and say we have a perfect 'peace in our time' because, arguably, the world is in as much turmoil now than it has ever been. The fact that we are out of step with our nearest neighbour, although the Aussies are far too polite to say so publicly, should be a warning to us to stop and think. Helen has decided that staying in power by buying votes with money which should have been spent on Defence is more important than our place in the world of standing up and being counted, and I for one will be glad to see the back of her. It won't be long now! All Governments lose elections the longer they are 'in' and the more arrogant they become; witness Cullen telling us all that he, and only he, knows best what to do with OUR money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jun 17, 2006 15:13:49 GMT 12
Apologies if this has been aired already, but was any BVR capability planned (either air-air or air-surface) for the RNZAF F-16's? Or were they just going to stick with Sidewinders and Mavericks? Just idly wondering (as you do). I believe these were effectively Block 15 A/c and I also recall that teh capabilty for AIM120's was being Dicussed. mavericks would have been a certainily, LGB's for sure, I'd say things like JDAM would also have been added. What the RNZAF needed (and still needs) is a decent ASM Harpoon or the like. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jun 17, 2006 15:16:30 GMT 12
There was a photo of an F-16 in RNZAF colours flying over Ruapehu floating around just after the deal was done. It was photoshopped obviously. Does anyone have that? AKE AKE KIA KAHA Forever and Ever Strong...  |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 18, 2006 1:53:34 GMT 12
Phil ...excellent overview of history in relationship to the lease to buy f16 deal and the politics of anti air strike ...ie to ensure at least one arm could not achieve combat capabilities....We are the only country in the world who have a minister for disarmarment....surprise...who happens to be the Minister of Defence who now tells us that the NH90 purchase may not be affordable....unbelievable ?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 18, 2006 2:13:30 GMT 12
There was a cancelation charg... and from memory was 11 million dollars might have been more...It was all preceeded by Helen Clark paying Hon Derek Quigley ( ACT party!) thousands of dollars to produce. a private independent report. In the finish his report suggested that half the no of F16s should be leased/purchased. Her anti ANZUS views formulated in her youth prevailed. His report was ignored and 3 squadrons scraped and with it the effective combat capability of the RNZAF. It was a shameful "Act"
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jun 18, 2006 9:16:47 GMT 12
What Helen and her socialists failed to appreciate was that New Zealand cannot defend itself, but Defence is inextricably linked to trade and foreign affairs. Fail to turn up at the former, and people doubt your seriousness. We are into collective security because we can't do it any other way; we are not self-sufficient when it comes to Defence, so the F16 was more than a token gesture, it was a sign that we were prepared to pull our weight. Not buying them sent all the wrong signals to any alliances we had left. The disbandment of the air combat force has been justified on the grounds that it had never been used since Confrontation. If actual combat is the definition of 'being used' then we didn't use a battalion for a generation until East Timor [and that wasn't a battalion], but no-one suggested that as an argument for abolishing infantry. I have home and contents insurance which I've never used in 36 years so should I scrap it on the grounds I don't need it? The point about insurance is that we hope we never have to use it. In practice though, our air combat force was in daily use in New Zealand and Australia, and frequently in Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. It was not only in use, but, more importantly, it was seen to be in use. Helen ignored all of this in her drive for revenge and pursuit of her bid to stay in power. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 18, 2006 12:51:44 GMT 12
A serious suggestion here, do you think it will be worth it to organise a wharfside protest for when (if??) the Skyhawks and Maachis leave? Protesting about the state of defence, somthe media clamps onto it and discussion is generated nationally. I recll when the announcement was made to scrap the strike wing, several polls by news agencies found that over 90% of the population thought it was stupid. Another case of Labour listening to their people.
Wasn't Derek Quigly previously National, in the Muldoon Govt? Or a I mistaken?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Jun 18, 2006 16:23:23 GMT 12
If they ever leave! It's looking increasingly doubtful that that will happen. Then Helen will be really embarrassed at having to break them up for scrap! I personally doubt they will ever fly again.
Yes, Quigley was a party hopper.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 18, 2006 17:25:44 GMT 12
Ron Marks has stated in parliament he wanted the Skyhwaks put into children's playgrounds rather than scrapping them. That'd be a cool toy to play on!
|
|
|
|
Post by xr6turbo1 on Jun 18, 2006 21:38:20 GMT 12
Ron Marks has stated in parliament he wanted the Skyhwaks put into children's playgrounds rather than scrapping them. That'd be a cool toy to play on! Only problem with that is that OSH would make the government take all of the sharp edges off and then resourse consent will be an issue, and then they would have to be taken away becuse the greenies would think we are glorifying war machines and then and then.................... na not going to happen. I still dont see the deal with the US going ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 19, 2006 2:01:29 GMT 12
I to will be surprised too if the A4s ever fly again....My only public protest was the the Save our Squadrons group and co...up Queen Street to the civic centre where we made our feelings known to the hippies in power.....The little hotrods might need to be downgraded from their F16 suite and sold on a as is where is basis? shameful.....
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 19, 2006 9:30:37 GMT 12
I wonder if they are consigned to scrap whether the public will be able to purchase them for the paltry amounts the Kittyhawks, Hudsons, Venturas and Corsairs all went for?  ? I'd buy a couple!  |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 19, 2006 17:59:29 GMT 12
Apologies if this has been aired already, but was any BVR capability planned (either air-air or air-surface) for the RNZAF F-16's? Or were they just going to stick with Sidewinders and Mavericks? Just idly wondering (as you do). back to the original question.... Umm, you'd think I'd know this one, being an armourer then and now... At the time of the purchase, I can remember no plans initially to equip the aircraft with BVR weapons. I'm sure given the aircraft's capability that AMRAAMS would have been purchased eventually (probably about now). |
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jun 28, 2006 22:05:49 GMT 12
Hi there, I just joined the forum tonight (finally!). Some of you know me - Don Simms ex 2 and 75 Sqn Avionics Tech. I featured on the Paul Holmes show on that fateful day in October 2001 when several hundred of us received our "DJ2" letters advising us our services were no longer required. After I was made redundant I worked for Safe Air at Ohakea on the Macchi's and A-4's for about 10 months before I embarked on a new career. It's hard to believe that the aircraft still haven't been sold. Personally I doubt the A-4's ever will now. The best thing they could do with them is give them to museums around NZ and Australia and Ground Training Wing at Woodbourne. Despite the Government's media spin the deal with Hoss Pearson and Tactical Air Services is a dead duck - it always was. Hoss' earlier civilian Skyhawk operation (ATSI) has also gone belly up.
I was on 75 Sqn when the F-16 deal was announced in 1998. One of my most treasured possessions is a gold F-16 tie pin given to me by the General Dynamics rep when he visited the Squadron shortly after the deal was announced. From memory the F-16 deal was announced just before Christmas because I recall the Christmas function that year was one to remember (weren't they all, but this one was special). There were F-16 ties, hats, Xmas tree decorations - you name it, it had an F-16 on it! It was a great feeling and we were all so looking forward to getting them. The transition from the A-4's to the F-16's would have been relatively straight forward for most of the trades. For Avionics it was actually going to be a step backwards in technology from the Kahu A-4 - the F-16A/B still used a lot of analogue systems. Many of the systems we were very familiar with, particularly the radar which was virtually the same as in the Kahu Skyhawk. But then along came the 1999 election and the rest is history.
To answer the original question about BVR weapons for the F-16's, no they weren't part of the original deal. The intention was to just use the existing A-4 weapons initially. The plan was to operate the F-16's for the first 5 years in the configuration they were built and then look at an Avionics and weapons upgrade later. As Calum has mentioned they were F-16A/B Block 15 OCU versions. This was the final F-16A/B version and as someone else mentioned they had the latest (most powerful) engines fitted and being F-16A's had a lightweight airframe. That combination would have made them awesome dog fighters - especially in the hands of our pilots. If we could kick butt with A-4's imagine what we could have done with those F-16's...
Anyway great site and I look forward to contributing more in the future.
|
|
?
