RNZAF Aircraft Selection Alternatives

[Calum]

phasselgren said:

According to The History of New Zealand Aviation about 10 types were discussed before the choice fell on the Skyhawk.

Among them was F-111, F-4C Phantom, F-5 Freedom Fighter, Mirage III, Mirage V, A-7 Corsair II, A-6 Attacker and of course A-4. With F-111 in the top and F-4C as second best and "of course" least wanted was A-4.

Cost vs capability you can see why the A-4 won out. The F-111, F-4 would be way to expensive to buy and operate. The Mirage's too limited and expensive to buy and run. A-6, see F-111 plus limted in role. F-5... another possibility, A-7 really only a mud mover.

If it was me the real choices would have come down to
F-4 followed by F-5 and A-4.

F-4 offer the best multi-role capabilty but the cost of ownership was high.

F-5 and A-4 roughly similar in capability/cost with the F-5 being a better fighter and the A-4 a better attacker. F-5 would be dearer to operate becasue of it's 2 engines though.

Note none of this has any factual basis just my opinion :-)

[Dave Homewood]

When the issue of replacing Skyhawks came up in the mid-1980's and Harriers, Hawks etc were looked at, also on the list were the F-5 and F-20 I believe.

Am I right in thinking the F-20 Tigershark was just an export version of the F-5? Or is that duff gen?

[turboNZ]

"Turbo, did you mean "air-to-air as in air-to-air missile capability, or aerial refuelling?"

I did mean air to air as surely that must have a a small consideration for the RNZAF. I did read that the A-6's had Sidewinder capability but were rarely carried ( I could have done a contract on Sideys for them ha ha ;D).

[turboNZ]

admin said:

When the issue of replacing Skyhawks came up in the mid-1980's and Harriers, Hawks etc were looked at, also on the list were the F-5 and F-20 I believe.

Am I right in thinking the F-20 Tigershark was just an export version of the F-5? Or is that duff gen?

It's pretty much an upgraded F-5G with a 1.13:1 power to weight so had great performance.
No customers were found for it and the programme died off.

[corsair67]

Another 1980s Skyhawk replacement option bandied about was to purchase secondhand ex-RAF Jaguars.

Yep, the F-20 was supposed to be quite impressive, but struggled to compete against orders for F-16s and F/A-18s.

[Dave Homewood]

Wow, the Jaguar would have been awesome!

How about the Tornado, was that looked at too?

[phil82]

In my recent rummaging, I came across this rather nice shot of one of the VIP Andovers.

[Dave Homewood]

Something I have always thought about the Andover is they looked really smart in the VIP scheme, yet really purposeful in the camouflage. They just suited any colours, a very attactive aircraft for a transport twin I reckon. It's a pity one hasn't been kept flying here by a syndicate, they put on a great display in the RNZAF days at airshows, remember how they did that low, slow swagger yawing from side to side, then would thunder in low hard and fast as well? Brilliant!

[turboNZ]

Yet the aircraft they were derived from, the HS748, looked frumpy, low key and quite bland.

[corsair67]

Dave, I don't recall the Tornado ever being mentioned: but that may be because my head is like a seive! ;D

I've always wondered if they deliberately chuck in a few silly suggestions amongst these lists of replacement aircraft, as apparently when the RAAF Mirage replacement was first being considered in the 1970s, the A-10 Thunderbolt II was on the list!

I love the A-10, but I'd never ever consider it being a suitable replacement for a fighter/attack aircraft!

[Dave Homewood]

I agree Craig, I wonder how many of these selection panels have the selection worked out in the first week, but then stack a few extras on so they can get trips to various countries to visit manufacturers and users, and maybe get some rides in awesome equipment. Imagine how much more wining and dining a selection panel would get if the list of possibles has ten aircraft rather than three...

Or am I being cynical now?

[phil82]

I understood there was very little commonality between the 748 and the Andover

[Calum]

Interesting, I was under the impression except for the undercarriage and rear fuselage they were quite similar. Engines were the same.

[Calum]

admin said:

I agree Craig, I wonder how many of these selection panels have the selection worked out in the first week, but then stack a few extras on so they can get trips to various countries to visit manufacturers and users, and maybe get some rides in awesome equipment. Imagine how much more wining and dining a selection panel would get if the list of possibles has ten aircraft rather than three...

Or am I being cynical now?

You're being to cynical Dave Most major capital procurements would only really have 2-4 practical or realsitic options. I'd argue even 4 is a lot, with 2 being more common

[phil82]

Were they the same engine? Both Darts, but the Andover produced a lot more power.

[Calum]

Good point, I have just assumed they were. (like the F-27). I work with a Ex RAN 748 maintainer, I'll have to ask him

[corsair67]

I am sure that I've read somewhere that the 748 and the Andover only had about 25% commonality.

Also, I think the Andovers had water/methanol injection to tweak up the engine output at takeoff?

[Calum]

Yes the Andover used Water meth's at times. Not usre about the HS748 though

[phil82]

There is a very large difference in power output between the Dart in the 748, and that of the Andover, even without Water Methanol injection, which was only used in prescribed circumstances. I had it explained to me in the Mess Bar one day, and it went something along the lines of using the Methanol was akin to a turbo boost, and the resulting additional heat generated was cooled by the water!

Quite simple really!

[phil82]

Cynical Dave? I'm afraid so.

As with everything else in Defence, there is a very tight budget set for overseas travel, for any reason. Gaining approval for visiting any organisation overses has to go through a very tight scrutiny, and even if you were on a project team, you can't just decide , "OK, let's go take a look". That only happens when there is a very high degree of certainty that whatever they are looking at is very high on the short-list. Also, even if the project team know instinctively what it is they need and will fit that need, that instinct has to be proved to Cabinet and Treasury. Just knowing, for example, that the NH90 was the best and only choice would not have prevented that happening if any other option was not eliminated for very sound reasons. I would put a safe bet on the fact thatthey wanted more than the number of NH90s purchased, but Treasury ruled "that's all the money you're getting".

I had a pressing need to go to Australia once, and I ended up on an Andover, with the Chief of Naval Staff and his entourage, and a bloody great fuel tank strapped inside the fuselage! No civil airline travel allowed at the time, not even for CNS.