|
Post by Ian Warren on Nov 19, 2016 18:03:59 GMT 12
Don, with those figures, it makes one really think of the money wasted, all the money training aircrew, the ground crew and the techies, the flag change for example was the recent ultimate classic clunker, seriously I hope the decision is going to really bite them, the Gov in the Ass! in the later years, we all now it was a token force but compared and well known to be the International's really had respect, something to be recconed with , fact is the experience and depth in knowledge is now lost.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Nov 19, 2016 20:02:44 GMT 12
Snafu, if the worst happens in terms of a military disaster time may have already run out for it to have been averted. By that I mean even if there is a sudden change in Defence Policy new hardware can't be put into service overnight. The bureaucratic acquisition process would alone take years. I don't like saying any of this. Fingers crossed that I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Nov 19, 2016 21:48:59 GMT 12
Snafu, if the worst happens in terms of a military disaster time may have already run out for it to have been averted. By that I mean even if there is a sudden change in Defence Policy new hardware can't be put into service overnight. The bureaucratic acquisition process would alone take years. I don't like saying any of this. Fingers crossed that I am wrong. Agree it does take time for new capabilty to reach FOC. But it should come down to within reason plan for the worst hope for the best. Consider the disaster responce within our area it's a wonder that they have no heavy lift rotary capabilty, it's all dual hat equipment defensive/offensive and HADR capabile. Just look at the Howard goverment push the HADR capability over defence needs of the LHD, but we certantly didn't get them for just that other cheaper options we could have got if that the primary role.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Nov 19, 2016 22:08:52 GMT 12
I like the model of the RN auxiliary force. Keep a range of logistical and support ships available for use in the likes of disaster relief without sacrificing more high end front line capabilities. The model worked great until budget cutbacks gutted the RN. In essence I think the problems can be boiled down to the fact NZ doesn't produce any military or civilian strategic thinkers.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Nov 19, 2016 23:08:54 GMT 12
The model worked great until budget cutbacks gutted the RN. In essence I think the problems can be boiled down to the fact NZ doesn't produce any military or civilian strategic thinkers. I hardly think that is the problem, defence force planners come up with plenty of options for their respective political masters, but it's those same masters that always look for the cheapest option which come back and bite them on the bum later on in the guide of unintended consequences or the thinking that the peice of kit can move/do more than the old so we only need 3rd of what we had but fail to take into account that all kit needs reguler maintenance which because of the complexity of the kit actually goes out of service for longer periods of time thus compounding quantity v quality debate.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Nov 20, 2016 20:41:02 GMT 12
like the overall grey scheme but just thinking, Don would know maybe, with the MLU, would they have gone with the conformal tanks ?
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 23, 2016 19:54:01 GMT 12
like the overall grey scheme but just thinking, Don would know maybe, with the MLU, would they have gone with the conformal tanks ? I doubt it. Would have spoilt their nice clean lines and performance in air combat (they would have become heavier and draggier). As delivered in 2002 these would have been the best performing F-16s in the world in a dog fight (lightest F-16 airframe + biggest engine + big elevator = awesome dogfighter). Would have outturned everything, hence why the USN picked most of them up for their aggressor squadron (and still operate them - without a MLU).
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Dec 13, 2016 16:14:30 GMT 12
President elect -Trump is not happy with the continued blowots cost of JSF, he's advocating more F16/18's. Quick do a deal with Trump on new build F16 he think he can get them cheaper than F35A's
|
|
|
Post by murray86 on Jan 21, 2017 18:02:16 GMT 12
I agree with Don, the F16s were a deal we could not afford to refuse at the time. However I disagree that they were the best for us. At the time, sitting at AMS, I felt the best aircraft was the F20 Tigershark. Ultimately more affordable, and have spoken to Goldie who flew both during the assessment phase, and he told me that he recommended the F20 over the F16.
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Jan 21, 2017 21:26:03 GMT 12
I agree with Don, the F16s were a deal we could not afford to refuse at the time. However I disagree that they were the best for us. At the time, sitting at AMS, I felt the best aircraft was the F20 Tigershark. Ultimately more affordable, and have spoken to Goldie who flew both during the assessment phase, and he told me that he recommended the F20 over the F16. I'm not disagreeing with what you heard but I'd suggest there was a good reason why the F-16 was & is a blinding success whereas the F-20 had 'no takers'after 6 years of exhaustive marketing by Northrop...
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Jan 22, 2017 15:10:41 GMT 12
During the early days of Kahu Northrop tried to sell the F-20 to us and brought to NZ a mockup of the cockpit along with all the sales kit which they set up at Air Movements in Wellington. It was never a serious contender because we don't become the first customer for anything (think zero stage compressor if you need to know why). As a design exercise at the end of Lee Begin's line of lightweight fighters it was a good aircraft that got it all together (it first flew as the F-5G). It just did not fit into the USAF's fighter requirements and with no home backing it had to join the long list of great aircraft that nobody wanted. All I got out of it was a tiepin, long gone.
|
|
|
Post by planecrazy on Mar 31, 2017 17:54:58 GMT 12
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Apr 10, 2017 19:43:46 GMT 12
Some great ideas there! Still makes me sad thinking about the whole thing though... According to Janes People may be surprised that the 32 F16's eventually wound up in ........Pakistan along with another 18 new F16C/Ds The PAF were looking for 8 more but were denied. The US Navy were peeved when they lost their aggressor aircraft A curious fate indeed
|
|
shaneh
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 1
|
Post by shaneh on May 10, 2017 21:46:19 GMT 12
Hi there, Apologies if this makes you groan at the ignorance, but a hypothetical question. If deteriorating circumstances forced our govt back to the fast jet game could our air force standardise on one type for example the Gripen and just use a larger pool of twin seaters and forgo the purchase of a separate lead in jet trainer? The reason I ask is that the Gripen F is quoted as having a flight hour cost of USD $4700. How would this compare to say Hawks/T-50's etc?
Also our old fleet I believe was operated on a budget of $200 mil a year (1999). How many hours typically would our pilots expect to get in the air for that? Was there a standard flight hour requirement of our fighter pilots at the time?
Appreciate your patience.
Kind regards,
Shane
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on May 14, 2017 10:34:37 GMT 12
If circumstances were that serious I doubt the cost of purchase or operation would be too much of a consideration! But I think we would still need a lead-in-fighter trainer. It would be a big jump from the T-6C to a modern front line jet. Re-establishing all of the infrastructure and systems for a fast jet capability would take a long time, but if this Singapore F-15 deal does happen then they will reintroduce a lot of it for us :+).
I think the A-4 and Macchi pilots averaged around 20 hours per month on that $200M (it fluctuated quite a bit between months though especially during deployments and exercises where they could fly a lot more. We got a hell of a lot of value out of that $200M. Two fully deployable/operational A-4 Squadrons and an excellent training system.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 23, 2017 14:52:58 GMT 12
If circumstances were that serious I doubt the cost of purchase or operation would be too much of a consideration! But I think we would still need a lead-in-fighter trainer. It would be a big jump from the T-6C to a modern front line jet. Re-establishing all of the infrastructure and systems for a fast jet capability would take a long time, but if this Singapore F-15 deal does happen then they will reintroduce a lot of it for us :+). Spot on. In a future wartime emergency, the RNZAF, will have to create pilot training programs without having the skills base.
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on May 23, 2017 15:23:20 GMT 12
Hi there, Apologies if this makes you groan at the ignorance, but a hypothetical question. If deteriorating circumstances forced our govt back to the fast jet game... By the time the govt finished waffling around and made a decision it would be far too late. Just acquiring the jets would take years, let alone rebuilding the pilot/ground crew training and maintenance capacity in the RNZAF. Like the bloke in the old Mainland cheese ad said, "good things take time..."
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on May 23, 2017 17:30:58 GMT 12
Like WW2 we will impress all the top dresser fleet and paint then grey while the rocket pods arrive ready to repel the badies as they cross the beaches.
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on May 24, 2017 8:54:13 GMT 12
Don't jest - there are photos of a Cresco (and suitably-dressed forum member, not I) with rocket pods!
|
|