|
|
Post by baz62 on Jun 15, 2014 20:10:18 GMT 12
Now we have all seen the cutting up of aircraft of the cold war or at least enabling that they will never fly again to display them in museums but i think the JSDF (Japanese Self Defence force) have gone a little bit over board here! Click HERE |
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Jun 16, 2014 0:48:59 GMT 12
What a bunch of dick-less wonders  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 16, 2014 12:43:27 GMT 12
That seems very bizarre.  |
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jun 16, 2014 13:44:51 GMT 12
I doubt somewhat the claim that many postwar countries "purchased" surplus T-6s for their own air forces. I think you will find that most were in fact supplied under various Military Assistance programmes (as were most American combat aircraft) to such air forces in Asia (Japan, Thailand, etc), Europe (Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Turkey, etc) and South/Central America during the late 1940 and well into the 50s. As this meant that the aircraft were supplied basically free of charge, not many recipients would refuse to accept them! Naturally the UK government was far too poor postwar to make such generous "donations", although they would sell you aircraft for cash if you had any to spare. Thus in 1946, the NZ Govt purchased 80 Mosquito FB Mk. VIs (30 with just delivery hours, other 50 with considerably more service under their belts) for an average price of about 5,000 pounds a piece. However when the same Govt ordered (1948/49) two Doves they got a shock - they were about 30,000 pounds each, which was a much more realistic manufacturing price. I am also aware that the US taxpayer considerably assisted the bankrupt British govt in paying for large numbers of British-built aircraft for the RAF in the 1950s, to bolster the ramparts against what was seen as expansionist communism in Europe - I have no idea of the actual figures, but these included very large numbers of the new aircraft coming into service, including Hunters, Swifts, Canberras, Javelins, and possibly Venoms, Shackletons and Gannets too, although probably not the V-bombers. I think some hundreds of millions of dollars were involved, and this was in addition to considerable numbers of American aircraft (B-29s, P2Vs, ADs, and TBMs, plus hundreds of Canadair Sabres which were used to equip the fighter element of 2 TAF in Germany). Although apparently enormously generous, the USA was not acting totally from an out-of-control sense of benevolence - British built military aircraft were in fact considereably cheaper to purchase than equivalent American aircraft at this time, and in the true sense (pre long range nuclear missiles) UK/Europe itself acted as the bulwark for the USA - the front line in other words. So agaist such a background you can see that these MAP programmes organized with other cash-strapped friendly governments to supply surplus and semi-obsolete American aircraft such as T-6s (then T-6s of course) also added generally to western military strength and deterrence, and made use of otherwise worthless aircraft which otherwise would have been sold for scrap. New Zealand never asked for assistance from the USA of course, being a loyal member of the Commonwealth, and we had ample numbers of stored Harvards, considered at the time sufficient to last for about 30 years or more.
David D
|
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jun 16, 2014 13:52:13 GMT 12
Although superficially it would seem that the JSDAF has little appreciation of the historical value of such machines, there are two alternative possibilities which would have to be considered:
1) There may be some sort of 'Lend Lease; type rule which requires the actual physical destruction of surplus materiel, or its return to the USA. Viewed in that context, what happened may not be so strange.
2). I believe however that that is not the real reason , and that what occurred has to do with the Japanese 'mind-set' towards authority and 'orders' from superiors. The Japanese are sticklers for (an almost-slavish) following of rules issued by those they consider to be in authority over them. In Japan, the Government is the ultimate authority, and so are the rules which 'Government' issues. With that in mind, if the DLA (a Department of the Government,and therefore charged with 'obeying' its rules, as they have been issued by that body) was tasked with the 'demilitarization' of an aircraft, then it would do what ever was required to ensure that that directive was followed. To do otherwise would be unthinkable. That the machine-concerned was (to Western eyes) worthy of preservation was, ultimately, irrelevant. The 'Rules' said that it must be demilitarised, and the 'rules' MUST be obeyed!!!! As we can see, they were.
Having said that, and as the machine now fully 'demilitarised' in compliance with 'orders from above', it is now available for some other use. A museum could even purchase it, should it be so inclined) and there would be no problem with that (although no doubt there would be some puzzlement as to why a museum would want a 'demilitarised' aircraft anyway, especially in the state it is in).
In this instance. 'cultural norms' have triumphed, the 'rules' have been obeyed; there was simply no other way it could be done.
The 'Rules is Rules and Must be Obeyed ' philosophy is not confined to Japan of course, it is just more 'entrenched' within that nation's culture.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 16, 2014 14:47:02 GMT 12
Very interesting David about the US Government funding the British air defences. I had no idea of that. I guess this scheme was well and truly past by the time the TSR-2 was developed or the Poms might have seen it in service?
Could this T-6 have possibly been in an area affected by the radiation disaster maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jun 16, 2014 17:07:32 GMT 12
Maybe the Japanese just don't like Texans!
|
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jun 16, 2014 17:11:31 GMT 12
davidd
MDAP!! Good grief sir, I didn't think anyone even vaguely remembered that particular little programme. That definitely dates me...
Dave H: Effectively, because of WWII, Britain was 'Broke' and in hock to the USA. As America was now all that stood between the Soviet Union and Western Europe, the USA had to somehow get a lot of military equipment built in a hurry. The easiest was to do this was to provide large sums of money (in highly-desirable US Dollars) to the NATO Allies for them to use to in turn purchase military equipment MADE IN THEIR OWN FACTORIES. This saved the USA having to build and ship its own military equipment across the North Atlantic, while at the same time encouraging local industry and reviving the various national economies. Al this without 'direct' US involvement, which meant that non political group could accuse the US of 'interference ' in the political affairs of another sovereign state.
AFAIRecall, the TSR-2 was an 'All British' effort, not funded by MDAP; by that stage the US had other priorities and interests, including several small conflicts in Asia and Africa, and a desire to get to the Moon ahead of the Russians.
In respect of British aviation this 'off-shore procurement' funding meant that the USA provided monies to develop and build all the British military aircraft (yes, including the V Bombers, Shacks' Gannets, as well as the Sea Venoms and Scimitars), and the necessary aero engines, that were produced until approximately 1957 and the publication of Duncan Sandy's 'White Paper' which killed the British aviation industry stone dead .
Fighters were especially important and were produced under 'Super Priority' funding, fortuitously helped by the Korean War which served to reinforce the urgency and show that the Communist threat was very real.
The US also supplied the 'interim' aircraft that davidd mentioned, the intention being to give Britain at least 'some' modern-ish defence capability while it was developing its new aircraft types. Not sure though, how B-29's would have lasted against Mig 15's. Korea showed that they would probably not have survived...
BTW, and FWIW: The Canadair-built Sabre's were a shock to the RAF fighter pilots who had previously thought that their Meteors were the 'bee's knees'. Where-as a Meteor F.8 and Vampire / Venom were only a stage removed from the WWII Spitfire, had essentially the same cockpit (draughts and all), and were definitely subsonic, the Sabre (being American, and fitted with all that the American pilots took for granted as their 'right') was 'all-electric' and flying one was essentially a case of 'hop in,close cockpit canopy, (electrically BTW) fire-up and go'. The Sabre had working heaters, reliable instruments and 'all the comforts of home'. Compared to the Meteors and Vamps' it was case of a Rolls Royce after a pushbike, and that this aircraft type, although by then a little dated, could even be made to exceed the Sound Barrier - comfortably, repeatedly and effortlessly, was, politely, somewhat galling. The Sabre was a dream,and so far into the 'then' future as to be 'wonder to behold'. Within the RAF, postings to Sabre-equipped squadrons suddenly became very desirable, and there was much lamenting when they were finally withdrawn and sent away (along with almost all of the other US-supplied aircraft, as Britain's aviation-industry finally got its act together and started to produce the V-Bombers, Hunters, Javelins etc.).
It was all a rather long time ago, and I was somewhat younger than I am now. Thanks davdd for reminding me...
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jun 16, 2014 17:59:37 GMT 12
The Japanese are sticklers for (an almost-slavish) following of rules issued by those they consider to be in authority over them. Not just the Japanese. Most Asian cultures have a similar philosophy. (Mind you the penalties for not obeying 'the rules' to the letter are, in some of those countries, even now quite severe). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 18:08:37 GMT 12
I just made an out-loud sound kinda like a disgusted squawk when I saw the second picture, "after demilitarization".
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Jun 18, 2014 15:45:12 GMT 12
I'm actually lost for words on this one. Shocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Jun 18, 2014 16:15:32 GMT 12
That seems entirely plausible and is a good point, Komata. The Americans did impose stringent disposal clauses on a number of countries when lending them aircraft; Lend Lease during WW2 is an example. Post war examples also include the surplus F-100s that European air forces acquired, including France, Denmark etc. Once these countries had finished with them, they were stuck as to what to do with them. A few ended up in museums in the UK, like the Super Sabre at the Newark Air Museum and hanging from the ceiling of the American Air Museum at Duxford. The USA had to be consulted regarding the disposal of these airframes and they couldn't be destroyed without their express permission.
Another aircraft subject to the same restrictions was the French Dassault Mystere, built with US supplied funds - examples of which ended up in museums across the UK. When the Welsh aviation museum at Carnaerfon (I think) closed down, its airframes were sold off or scrapped, but no one knew what to do about the Mystere since it officially belonged to the USAF; not surprisingly, requests by the former museum owners to the USAF to have it removed went unanswered, so for years it sat around on the land somewhat neglected. I don't know if its still there or not.
The F-4 Phantom II is covered by US legistlation regarding disposal of surviving examples. When we attempted to acquire a Phantom for the museum at East Fortune, the curator had to write letters to the US embassy to gain permission since at the time - and still, if I'm not mistaken, the Iranians operated F-4s, so there was a fear that parts could be shipped off to Iran clandestinely - stanger things have happened, so we had to jump through hoops to get a Phantom, despite the fact that in the 1990s there were loads sitting around British bases awaiting their fates - they couldn't be disposed of without permission and subsequent supervision. It was stipulated that only national collections could acquire F-4s, despite the Midland Air Museum having an ex-USAF one on display for years. We received an ex-US Marine Corps F-4 that had been at the FAA Museum at Yeovilton - swapped for a Supermarine Scimitar now on the deck of the USS Intrepid aircraft carrier in Manhattan, and had been pushed outside once the RAF retired its Phantoms and the navy could get one for its display.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Jun 18, 2014 16:29:49 GMT 12
The thing was, the British actually had second generation jet fighters under development that could have matched the Sabre and more notably the MiG-15, which set a benchmark and shivers through the Wests' strategists on its appearance. The issue was that Rolls Royce and the aviation industry had committed itself to developing the axial flow Avon and not continuing developing the Nene, which many argued still had a future at the time RR ceased its development. The only notable British aircraft powered by the Nene in service was the Sea Hawk, which was no great performer, but as the Russians did with Klimov RD-45, the Nene had much left in it when RR abandoned it. This was of course because in 1946 Comrade Attlee gifted examples of British engines to the Soviets - why? Who knows - but the Russians benefitted enormously from the technology and gave the West a real fright.
Because the Avon was being promoted as the next big thing, the British aviation industry went along with it and designed types around it, but it was troublesome to begn with and took some sorting out to get right. The Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engine was superior to the first gen Avon, but was not utilised as well as what it should have been, equipping the Javelin and RR eventually took the measure of fitting the Sapphire's superior compressor section to the Avon hot section, which produced the later Avon that powered the Lightning and got rid of the compressor stall issues the early Avon suffered terribly from. The next gen RAF fighters, the Hunter and Swift suffered from innumerable design issues and were late in service - the Swift as a recon platform with one squadron only, so the engine problems only exacerbated things and left the RAF with the Meat Box as its primary fighter for too long. Obviously this could not have been foreseen when RR decided not to continue developing the Nene, but it was a costly ommission and left the British with second rate equipment. By the time the Hunter and all its issues had been sorted, the Russians had introduced the MiG-19 and excellent MiG-21, both of which could evenly match and exceed the British types in performance and firepower.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jun 18, 2014 20:00:46 GMT 12
Lend-Lease could be flexible.
The RNZAF Catalinas were Lend-Lease aircraft, but post-war arrangements were made so that these could continue to be operated up until replacement aircarft could enter service - in this case the Sunderland Mk5s in 1953.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 18, 2014 23:35:12 GMT 12
Perhaps it's just a case that the chap told to dispose of it was an ex-Kamikaze pilot?
|
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Jun 19, 2014 2:51:14 GMT 12
Not always possible to otherwise dispose of aviation assets purchased from the US DoD. Take the poor old Bell 47 in the RNZAF. Faced with a surplus of spares in the early 1990's, they decided to sell off the surplus (spares for 13 machines had been purchased, but when I was working on them there were only 5 left).
US DoD refused to allow the sale of "military" parts that had been purchased from them, as per the sales contract, so engines, frames, cockpit bubbles and various other parts, were destroyed at the stores depot in Hobby.
Beachy, Rem and myself managed to get down there and hide a few parts that we knew would be useful in the future, and once all the hoo-haa had died down, they were quietly returned to stores.
Stupid stupid stupid bean counters wanting to save money by getting rid of any stock lines that hadn't been used in the last three years. Ugh!!!
Perhaps a similar situation with this aircraft, where the simplest solution is to just destroy it. Very sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeromedia on Jun 19, 2014 7:50:28 GMT 12
Beggars belief. Frustrating and disturbing.
Right up there with recent mass burial of F 111's.
|
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jun 19, 2014 8:20:12 GMT 12
Dave How can one be an 'ex' kaimakaze pilot? (unless the war ended before he did)  Just wondering... |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 19, 2014 12:18:12 GMT 12
They do exist Komata. A few of them have even visited NZ and met with kiwi fighter pilots over the years. Instructors at the Kamikaze schools, and trainees who were not selected for mission.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jun 19, 2014 12:47:53 GMT 12
Look on the bright side,your next Honda Accord may have been made from a Harvard.
Isn't the demilitarisation thing a hangover from the war?.Like the reason its called the Self defense Force and not the airforce?.
Didn't even Germany have issues sending troops/planes to Iraq? because of the war they could only be a self defence force too?.
|
|
