|
|
Post by Naki on Sept 9, 2009 23:43:38 GMT 12
Plus range/payload would also be an issue especially of you take off vertical from a ship
|
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Sept 9, 2009 23:50:39 GMT 12
Single seat Hawks have been sold to Malaysia, Oman and Indonesia. The Hawk 200 ws discounted by the RNZAF when they were looking at F-16s becaue of range/payload and performance issues..the Skyhawks were better. What about the KAI T-50..near Gripen perfomance, AGP-67 radar, decent payload..much more capable than a Hawk. www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t-50/ |
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Sept 10, 2009 0:03:09 GMT 12
This is a brilliant thread! Keep it up guys.
Phil said about the SHAR:
Whilst I don't fully agree with the remark about British manufacture, the Sea Harrier is a relatively old basic design and by modern standards it would be manpower intensive for maintenance. Not sure the troops thought it was all that difficult to maintain either because there was a fair bit of innovative design, especially with the ground breaking new bits like the incredibly simple reaction control system which was nearly as simple and fail safe (relatively) as the swiveling jet nozzles.
Having agreed it was manpower intensive, it was no more so than most aircraft of its design age. In every operational context, availability for the Sea Harrier was very high. Indeed, in my experience of both the A4 and the Sea Harrier, I would say the Sea Harrier had a definite advantage in terms of serviceability, even in the most complex FA2 configuration.
As Phil says, finding enough available aeroplanes would be the biggest problem in trying to gather in a viable FA2 force. I don't know, but I do not believe there has been much storage of airframes, engines or sensors.
Dave H says:
Now there is a thought! How neat would that be? As a possible alternative if new aeroplanes are a bridge too far, what about some refurbished "Thunder Macchi MB339s" armed with some modern weaponry?" Macchis look pretty good and I reckon you could get them cranked up pretty well. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 10, 2009 7:05:05 GMT 12
Whilst I don't fully agree with the remark about British manufacture, Well given the choice between working on a 40 year old british design and even a relatively old (F16/F18 era) American design, I know which is significantly better designed from a maintenance perspective. The british seem to start with an obscure component in the middle and then build an airframe around it, bolting things on with odd sized fastners (like penny slot). To complicate matters, many older british airframes seem to be hand built by 150 year old craftsman in flat caps, who make each one slightly differently, hand forming components and making small changes not shown in drawings and IPBs. Americans on the other hand seem to have leant something from Henry Ford, and mass produce identical airframes designed to be maintained by the lowest common denominator. |
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Sept 10, 2009 9:13:13 GMT 12
My take on this is that should the government decide to do this, they would look for the cheapest option possible. So NZ would end up flying something the Australians have a lot of experience with so they can provide training and support while the RNZAF conducts a massive recruitment drive to rebuild the support services an operational combat wing requires. That pretty much means we have a choice of Hawks or F/A-18s as F-111s are now too expensive to maintain even for the Australians.
I'd go for the Hornets.
Another option (and possibly more realistic) is that we plead with the Australians to base a Hawk squadron over here permanently and rotate RNZAF staff through to upskill them with a view of eventually purchasing our own Hawks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Sept 10, 2009 9:24:48 GMT 12
Plus range/payload would also be an issue especially of you take off vertical from a ship Thats why it is on a ship  |
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Sept 10, 2009 9:52:34 GMT 12
Phil, your comments are noted. ;D I agree that (more) modern aeroplanes such as the F16/18 are more easily maintained than older aeroplanes such as the Sea Harrier. NB: I didn't bring up the type, and whilst I do not know, I am thinking your views might be preconceived? Anyway, what you think about British manufacture is not relevant to the thread. Some would even say your comments are a bit rich/jaundiced coming from somewhere without the category of aeroplanes being dreamed about, let alone the ability to build them. But I won't say that. ;D
On thread though, what about flyinkiwi's excellent thought?
Except that NZ has the wherewithal and national pride to be able to come to a mutually beneficial agreement with Australia, so I wouldn't recommend pleading. Stand tall and proud. Whilst Phil may not be, I am absolutely certain NZ has plenty of maintainers and pilots who would be skilled enough to support such activity, even if the aeroplane type is tainted with British origins ! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 10, 2009 9:59:51 GMT 12
Well someone mentioned Sea Harriers, and who do you think would end up maintaining them? Me. So from the point of view of a current serving person who would end up working on whatever type could be purchased, I'd say it is a bit relevent. Of course I know you realise my post was firmly tongue in cheek.
FWIW, I love british aircraft, from a distance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Wright on Sept 10, 2009 10:12:08 GMT 12
Single seat Hawks have been sold to Malaysia, Oman and Indonesia. The Hawk 200 ws discounted by the RNZAF when they were looking at F-16s becaue of range/payload and performance issues..the Skyhawks were better. Thanks Paul, I'm remembering more about the Hawk 200 now. Haven't kept up with modern military stuff for a while - ages in fact given how long since NZ considered the F-16s. I do like the idea of an RAAF Hawk unit being based in NZ as a lead-in for the RNZAF but, of course, that is a commitment to the Hawk. F/A-18s - secondhand Australian ones or new ones? Is there such a thing as a cheap Super Hornet? Silly question! Is the Tornado too much? Ooh, I like the T-50. A modern, very new, take on the Hawk idea. |
|
|
|
Post by flycookie on Sept 10, 2009 10:54:22 GMT 12
With only about 10 seconds thought, I'd vote for Hawk 128s as an initial step back to fast jets ops, then enough Gripens for a deployable squadron, OCU/training unit and enough in the shed for maintenance unavailability and attrition.
I think Barnesy (?) wrote somewhere else that the planned pool of F-16s was to be sorted and rotated thusly, and it still seems a good set up for NZ to me.
For those who are thinking ex-RAAF Hornets, by the time they come out of service they'll be right on the edge of airframe life, among other things. Even if not, they'll be the most appalling maintenance hogs by then, a la F-111s.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 10, 2009 11:37:52 GMT 12
I think the Strikemaster has scared RNZAF tradies off working on British aircraft ever again. I think the RNZAF are still running therapy sessions for all those still scarred by the whole experience. ;D The sad thing is that NZ had a once-in-a-lifetime, deal-of-the-century opportunity to pick up a fleet of extremely low-timed F-16A/Bs, but a bush pig came along and took it all away - and sadly, as we all know, it is now highly unlikely that the same kind of deal would ever come up again. Mind you, Sweden was/is doing a deal with Thailand for sale of the Gripen that included accepting chicken meat as part of the contract; so NZ could be in with a Gripens for Canterbury Lamb deal!   Photo Copyright SAAB. |
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Sept 10, 2009 13:00:52 GMT 12
Do what the Czech Republic and Hungary did and lease a squadron of Gripens off the Swedes ..they have plenty of surplus Gripens
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Wright on Sept 10, 2009 13:48:06 GMT 12
Chuck in some Kiwi wine and I reckon you've got a deal.
I still remember when I first heard about the F-16 deal. Got most excited at the increase in capability this was to bring. Ah well.
Is it worth considering anything Russian or should we not go there? Probably not as interchangeable with the RAAF, Yanks etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 10, 2009 14:11:16 GMT 12
Product support can be one of the biggest issues for Russian built aircraft, so that's one reason why New Zealand would probably never go there!
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Wright on Sept 10, 2009 14:14:47 GMT 12
Good. Was just throwing it out there but am relieved!
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 10, 2009 14:17:32 GMT 12
Plus if NZ bought any Russian aircraft, then the Americans would be convinced that NZ really had gone commie! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Sept 10, 2009 18:10:57 GMT 12
Whilst I don't fully agree with the remark about British manufacture, Well given the choice between working on a 40 year old british design and even a relatively old (F16/F18 era) American design, I know which is significantly better designed from a maintenance perspective. The british seem to start with an obscure component in the middle and then build an airframe around it, bolting things on with odd sized fastners (like penny slot). To complicate matters, many older british airframes seem to be hand built by 150 year old craftsman in flat caps, who make each one slightly differently, hand forming components and making small changes not shown in drawings and IPBs. Americans on the other hand seem to have leant something from Henry Ford, and mass produce identical airframes designed to be maintained by the lowest common denominator. lmfao! gold! wow this threads going great, I think I have created a monster! |
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Sept 10, 2009 18:38:31 GMT 12
good stuff in here guys I see there is quite a wide spectrum of opinions! who said tornado's? I think you might be onto something there, aren't the Brits replacing them with eurofighters? however I suppose they will be very well 'used' and probably just as bad as battered ex aus f18's? Back to the gripen. I wonder how they would fare maintenance wise? I think they are probably best value for money spent considering their relative modern design when you compare them to f16's and 18's. Correct me if I am wrong but gripen/f16/f18 would all be (now after swamp donkey stuffed the f-16 deal) relatively similar? perhaps the f18 is slightly more expensive to purchase generally speaking. I am also aware the swedes are having probably not as much success as they would like in selling the gripen currently, they seem to be loosing out to the f16 a bit (so perhaps the f16 is cheaper) and are probably quite keen to sell a bunch at a slightly discounted rate. So how would we go in terms of spares etc? probably quite pricey ay? at least if they bare any relation to their automobile counterparts  russian aircraft would be great we could probably get a few mig-29's off the black market for next to nothing haha! Imagine the avionics in the things. an array of vacuum tubes bathed in a sea of bakelite! oh no, that was the fox-bat... all joking aside they would be absolutely the best option money wise as they would be SO cheap. you could buy double the amount of mig-29's as 16's or 18's (surely?!) cannibalize half of them for parts and import 20 experienced technicians for the promise of a good wage. However I can also imagine how peeved uncle tom would be not to mention our commonwealth buddies! |
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Sept 10, 2009 20:52:43 GMT 12
good stuff in here guys I see there is quite a wide spectrum of opinions! who said tornado's? I think you might be onto something there, aren't the Brits replacing them with eurofighters? however I suppose they will be very well 'used' and probably just as bad as battered ex aus f18's? ! I have read, I'm sure, that the Tornado was built for a 10,000 hour life-span, and all of them have exceeded that! We would have to be barking mad to buy, or accept as a gift, anything from the UK. All of this is purely academic anyway, because it will never happen. The strike force is gone, and it ain't coming back! |
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Sept 10, 2009 21:31:30 GMT 12
haha, never happen? it might take 20 years but it will absolotely happen there isnt a question about it, its just the way of the world dont you think?
|
|
