New Zealand seeks fresh bids for stored Skyhawks

Steyr

Interesting, Im wondering if they have been correctly stored who do you think would Purchase them?

An awful amount of money has been spent on maintaining them so the Article says.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/04/22/355877/new-zealand-seeks-fresh-bids-for-stored-skyhawks.html

goldie fish

They should put them back into service.

BlaasForRafa

Steyr wrote: »

Interesting, Im wondering if they have been correctly stored who do you think would Purchase them?

An awful amount of money has been spent on maintaining them so the Article says.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/04/22/355877/new-zealand-seeks-fresh-bids-for-stored-skyhawks.html

The only former operators still using the Skyhawk are the brazilians but I'd presume that the Kiwi skyhawks aren't navalized and would need strengthened undercarraiges and arrestor hooks to be installed to make them carrier worthy. its probably not worth the bother.

The other logical buyers would be african countries looking to upgrade but the Skyhawk is in the odd position of being too advanced for the low intensity ground attack/trainer role that many smaller countries would be looking for and too old/slow for the air superiority role that mre affluent countries would be interested in. After all if you can afford rafales/gripens/flankers etc why would you plump for the skyhawk?

Also I wonder how many years are left in the airframes?

goldie fish

They were retired quite early, by a penny pinching Helen Clarke government that also let the NZ navy fall down to 2 ships.
The A4s were supposed to be sold to a US warbirds company, that intended to keep them flying in Kiwi colours, but the US state dpt said "not on your nelly". Seems they have issues with private air forces. It would cost an estimated $35M to get them back in flying condition.
Worth mentioning that when the aircraft were withdrawn in 2001, most jet qualified pilots headed to Australia to fly for the RAAF.

voter1983

Just getting this out before anybody else does. Maybe we should buy them?

punchdrunk

not a chance!

never mind the fact that it's a near 60 year old design,but what role would it perform? it's too slow to be an interceptor,which is what we really need
these are just about fit for a Museum,maybe spare parts for the Brazilians

what we need is a squadron or F-18 super Hornets or Eurofighters (of course this will never happen) I don't doubt we need ultimately them,but the question is what else do we need as a greater priority?

troop transport helis and planes,and greater numbers of maritime patrol aircraft to me should be the priority

Morpheus

more whirly birds, maritime patrol, troop transport, mowags, ltv's, jeeps and linker boots.

Steyr

Helicopters and UAV's.

goldie fish

voter1983 wrote: »

Just getting this out before anybody else does. Maybe we should buy them?

......estimated $35M to get them back in flying condition

SellingJuan

(maritime patrol) is what we really need. Corrrecr me if I am wrong but according to the irish military website they boarded something like 1000 vessels. There are alot of illegal traulers in Irish coastal waters not to be blunt "But Stealing Our Fish". Ever since the 70s when we opened our fishing waters we have had spanish and even russians fishing here. Not only that but according to the Irish air corps "Oct 2009 that tuna stocks in the Eastern Atlantic have declined by 72% placing the valuable Atlantic Bluefin firmly on the endangered species list" This is just madness and I recon a better equiped air corps and maritime patrol will help to solve this problem

goldie fish

Yup. Maritime patrol should be a 24 hour operation, 7 days a week.

Not just 10-3.30 mon-fri(army holidays excluded)

xflyer

The time to sell them was when they were retired. Now they're just museum pieces. Maybe the guy in Weston who owns the Buccaneer could buy one.

They certainly aren't needed by the New Zealand any more than they are needed by us. Although something with an onboard radar might have been useful given the events of the next few weeks. Trying to vector a non radar equipped turboprop onto a bogey is quite difficult isn't it?

punchdrunk

xflyer wrote: »

The time to sell them was when they were retired. Now they're just museum pieces. Maybe the guy in Weston who owns the Buccaneer could buy one.

They certainly aren't needed by the New Zealand any more than they are needed by us. Although something with an onboard radar might have been useful given the events of the next few weeks. Trying to vector a non radar equipped turboprop onto a bogey is quite difficult isn't it?

and sure aren't rockets pods world renown for their minimal "collateral damage"

BEASTERLY

goldie fish wrote: »

Not just 10-3.30 mon-fri(army holidays excluded)

I wonder where people get off on spouting this sort of rubbish? Do you have any reason to believe this, do you actually have knowledge of the operations. I've often seen and heard CASA's over here at all hours 7 days a week.

I suppose this is the issue on here, too many people with chips on their shoulders against the DF for some reason. I'm not in or have family in the DF but i can still admire their work. Is there some sort of pleasure in making stuff up and spreading it to support your cynical views?

goldie fish

BEASTERLY wrote: »

I wonder where people get off on spouting this sort of rubbish? Do you have any reason to believe this, do you actually have knowledge of the operations. I've often seen and heard CASA's over here at all hours 7 days a week.

I suppose this is the issue on here, too many people with chips on their shoulders against the DF for some reason. I'm not in or have family in the DF but i can still admire their work. Is there some sort of pleasure in making stuff up and spreading it to support your cynical views?

Past experience, and testimony from former techies.
It may be flying, but there is nothing like the maintenance level that is considered normal on civilian aircraft. That comes from those who have worked both within the AC and Civvy airlines.
Will the techies be available on sunday evening to get the other aircraft in th eair if the flyable one goes U/s? Or will it have to wait till they turn up for work on monday?
Is the maintenance of AC aircraft a 24 hour operation?

I already know the answer.

OS119

goldie fish wrote: »

...I already know the answer.

i take it i get three guesses, but will only need one?

questionmark?

Hi guys lurking in here for a while first time poster.

Can somebody explain to me please in lay man language how the skyhawks would not suit our needs better than the current Cessna's that we have. I mean did a little google and surely these would be able to respond to an emergency such as a hijacked civilian aircraft, that our current capabilities couldn't.

Steyr

questionmark? wrote: »

Hi guys lurking in here for a while first time poster.

Can somebody explain to me please in lay man language how the skyhawks would not suit our needs better than the current Cessna's that we have. I mean did a little google and surely these would be able to respond to an emergency such as a hijacked civilian aircraft, that our current capabilities couldn't.

Hi there, and welcome someone more technically better placed will answer that arguement for you but apart from the Cessna's being propellor Aircraft and the Skyhawks being Jets would be an obvious point and The Irish Air Corps utilise the Cessna's for a variety of Jobs but to intercept an Airliner ha ha not a notion, your talking about sending a prop Aircraft up against a Jet never going to happen anywhere or with any Air arm period.

See this link for Irish Cessna Information: http://www.military.ie/air-corps/fleet/cessna-172

Just as an added bit the Cessna's proved to be a very good buy for the IAC.

punchdrunk

if we do a quick comparison of what we used to have,what we currently have
what the Skyhawk would give us,and what the Eurofighter has...

Supermarine Seafire
Maximum speed: 359 mph (578 km/h) at 5,100 ft (1,514 m)
Cruise speed: 218 mph (350 km/h)
Range: 513 mi (825 km)
Service ceiling: 32,000 ft (9,753 m)
Rate of climb: 1.9 min to 5,000 ft (1,525 m)


Pilatus PC-9
Maximum speed: 593 km/h (368 mph; 320 kn)
Cruising speed: 552 km/h (343 mph; 298 kn) KTAS at 10,000 ft
Range: 1,593 km (990 mi; 860 nmi)
combat radius 650km
Service ceiling: 11,580 m (37,992 ft)
Rate of climb: 20.8 m/s (4,090 ft/min)

A4 Skyhawk
Maximum speed: 585 kn (673 mph, 1,077 km/h)
Range: 1,700 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)
Combat radius: 625 nmi, 1,158 km/h ()
Service ceiling: 42,250 ft (12,880 m)
Rate of climb: 8,440 ft/min (43 m/s)

Eurofighter typhoon
Maximum speed Mach 2 (2,495 km/h/1,550 mph)
At sea level: Mach 1.2 (1,470 km/h/910 mph)
Range: 2,900 km (1,800 mi)
Service ceiling: 19,810 m (64,990 ft)
Rate of climb: >315 m/s (62,000 ft/min)

basically the Pc-9 is not really any better than a spitfire
the skyhawk is still a sub mach 1 strike aircraft/bomber that couldn't reach the service ceiling of an A340 for example -it was never intended as an interceptor,so it has too slow a climb rate and can carry a very limited range of ordinance (sidewinders were meant as self defense weapons for dog fighting to taking down an airliner)
putting aside it's massive speed and weapons advantage look at how quickly a typhoon can reach altitude

questionmark?

Looking at it realistically the Irish AC are never going to by a single Eurofighter typhoon.

If the Skyhawk is not good enough in peoples eyes what can we get as a nation to improve our air defenses? Again thinking realistically the Typhoon costs approx 126 million sterling a piece :eek:.

punchdrunk

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

Could be gotten on a lease to buy arrangement

OS119

questionmark? wrote: »

If the Skyhawk is not good enough in peoples eyes what can we get as a nation to improve our air defenses?

the maths have been done before. the cheapest/lowest spec aircraft available that will do (as opposed to pretend to to do) the air policing job is the F-16C/D.

range, speed, time to height, avionics, weapons, availability, etc all point to the F-16C/D - and the maths of actually operating a QRA/CAP that can do the job, rather than do a fly-past O'Connell street on St Patricks day, says you need between 48 and 60 airframes. at $60-odd million a pop.

a much cheaper option would be to either join NATO and exchange the use of Irish airfields for a NATO air policing force, or to make a straight commercial arrangement with the UK - £ for protection...

Stovepipe

Hi
All Skyhawks were carrier-rated from Day 1.Some operators took off the naval equipment but the airframe was always the same. If they are in flyable storage, then they could be made airworthy for small money.
Where does the figure of 48-60 airframes for a viable QRA for a 400-mile long island come from???
I'd rather the State leased or hired in a fighter squadron from friendly nations such as sweden, if they had to. Personally, I'd like to see proper heavy lift helis, a flight of attack helicopters for overseas deployment and a modest amount of C130s for overseas transport.
regards
Stovepipe

goldie fish

Stovepipe wrote: »

Hi
All Skyhawks were carrier-rated from Day 1.Some operators took off the naval equipment but the airframe was always the same. If they are in flyable storage, then they could be made airworthy for small money.
Stovepipe

$35m

OS119

Stovepipe wrote: »

...Where does the figure of 48-60 airframes for a viable QRA for a 400-mile long island come from???

simple mathmatics and an understanding of what it takes to maintain an air componant as a going concern.

3 aircraft in immediately available flying condition - fueled up, armed, with all mission critical systems working, and sat on the ready pan. those 3 aircraft swap readiness state with another three aircraft every 12 hours. so thats 6 aircraft.

you then need to train your pilots - and have them maintain currency. which you can't do by having aircrew sat in a warm aircraft on a ready pan for 6 hours flicking themselves off waiting for a call from a rattled air traffic controller. each pilot can, realisticly, do 8 hours waiting/flying in any 24 hr period. so thats 10+ pilots for each 24hr period. so, taking into account leave, staff courses, pilots not wanting to be on duty for 12hrs every day for their entire career, instructor tours and all the other crap, you're looking at 60-odd current pilots at any one time.

you need 'spare' aircraft to undertake those training missions - 20-40 flying hours per pilot per month for a qualified, current pilot, and much more than that for a pilot training on type. probably 20 or so non-QRA airframes.

you then need a further 'active' spare pool of aircraft - none of the above takes into account birdstrikes, contractors wreaking aircraft (British Aerospace manged to write off 12 RAF Tornado F3's in one go because they ignored the 'don't walk here' signs on the aircraft), upgrades, metal fatigue re-furbs, and all the other miriad of expensive, damaging things that happen to aircraft.

you then need your attrition replacements - every other air arm operating fast jets loses between a quarter and a third of its force over the 25-30 year life of a type in service in operational and training accidents. these can, to a large degree, be bought, then wrapped in plastic and stuffed in a hanger until required.

you then face a more strictly political than aerospace problem - do you believe that the political class would accept a situation where, for instance, a future Irish infantry Bn going to Chad would be allowed to go without taking some of the shiny, very expensive Irish F-16/Grippen/Rafales with them? so, another 6 aircraft - but of course its not just 6 aircraft, its the additional training/currency airframes, and the spares, and the attrition replacements to keep those 6 aircraft in the air.

can you see where this is going?

Steyr

Good post OS119 but do you think pilots will sit in a Falcon on the pan? Do the RAF do this or any other Air arm? I thought the RAF Scrambled QRA's and the pilot was not in the Aircraft more like an SAR Crew just waiting until called then Scrambled.

I believe the USAF in still just have the Aircraft prepped and ready for a QRA call but the pilots are in waiting and not in the Aircraft. Any footage I have seen of USAF QRA's shows the pilot/s essentially running to Aircraft and not sitting in them.

OS119

Steyr wrote: »

Good post OS119 but do you think pilots will sit in a Falcon on the pan? Do the RAF do this or any other Air arm? I thought the RAF Scrambled QRA's and the pilot was not in the Aircraft more like an SAR Crew just waiting until called then Scrambled.

I believe the USAF in still just have the Aircraft prepped and ready for a QRA call but the pilots are in waiting and not in the Aircraft. Any footage I have seen of USAF QRA's shows the pilot/s essentially running to Aircraft and not sitting in them.

depends on the readiness state - but its much of a muchness: a pilot sat in the crew room browsing through the latest edition of 'wife-swapping monthly' for 8 hours isn't on a staff course, he's not getting currency on the AMRAAM, and he's not at home with another mans wife or spending time with the one he loves looking in the mirror...

Stovepipe

A couple of things here: Most QRAs are of two aircraft, per station. Any QRA I've ever heard of keeps it's pilots and techs and ATC personnel on hand, in comfort, for 24 hours. As you rightly point out, it soaks up a ****load of assets to sustain.
Apart from that, Ireland wouldn't fund an armed aircraft force of greater than six or so, given the previous history and the sheer cost of even a basic aircraft like a Skyhawk and if they do go to a warzone again, then I suspect they'll bring helicopters and if they need to have armed air cover, they'll arm their helis first and then consider using someone else's combat aircraft, ie, let another force take the dirty job on.
When all is said and done, even a squadron of A4s would be better than nothing.
regards
GttC

stockyboie

OS119 wrote: »

simple mathmatics and an understanding of what it takes to maintain an air componant as a going concern.

3 aircraft in immediately available flying condition - fueled up, armed, with all mission critical systems working, and sat on the ready pan. those 3 aircraft swap readiness state with another three aircraft every 12 hours. so thats 6 aircraft.

you then need to train your pilots - and have them maintain currency. which you can't do by having aircrew sat in a warm aircraft on a ready pan for 6 hours flicking themselves off waiting for a call from a rattled air traffic controller. each pilot can, realisticly, do 8 hours waiting/flying in any 24 hr period. so thats 10+ pilots for each 24hr period. so, taking into account leave, staff courses, pilots not wanting to be on duty for 12hrs every day for their entire career, instructor tours and all the other crap, you're looking at 60-odd current pilots at any one time.

you need 'spare' aircraft to undertake those training missions - 20-40 flying hours per pilot per month for a qualified, current pilot, and much more than that for a pilot training on type. probably 20 or so non-QRA airframes.

you then need a further 'active' spare pool of aircraft - none of the above takes into account birdstrikes, contractors wreaking aircraft (British Aerospace manged to write off 12 RAF Tornado F3's in one go because they ignored the 'don't walk here' signs on the aircraft), upgrades, metal fatigue re-furbs, and all the other miriad of expensive, damaging things that happen to aircraft.

you then need your attrition replacements - every other air arm operating fast jets loses between a quarter and a third of its force over the 25-30 year life of a type in service in operational and training accidents. these can, to a large degree, be bought, then wrapped in plastic and stuffed in a hanger until required.

you then face a more strictly political than aerospace problem - do you believe that the political class would accept a situation where, for instance, a future Irish infantry Bn going to Chad would be allowed to go without taking some of the shiny, very expensive Irish F-16/Grippen/Rafales with them? so, another 6 aircraft - but of course its not just 6 aircraft, its the additional training/currency airframes, and the spares, and the attrition replacements to keep those 6 aircraft in the air.

can you see where this is going?

yup can see where its going. Basically your saying we'll never buy jet aircraft and your right we won't. Irish people simply will never experience the joy or pride of owning these wonderful aircraft like others do for the simple reason we lack the will power as a nation to even consider any sort of defence important. Theres no point even having this discussion. We will always remain a third rate nation in terms of defence. Basically the irish defence forces job is to look after cash in transit vans and to fly politicans around to various opening ceremonies and events. Theres nothing wrong with that. If the coat fits wear it.

MrConservative

Eight of the A-4K's are going to Museums in NZ on loan and one is heading back across the Tasman to the RAN Museum as it served there between 1968 and 1984. The RAN used the Skyhawks off their carrier the HMAS Melbourne. (Ballsy stuff - imagine a night landing in a jet on a small WW2 era Majestic Class light carrier) Most of the Museums in NZ will pay around $30000 for the loan of the Squawks - essentially the cost of transport and prep for display. The remaining 8 will be up for grabs until May 16 - basically until 5pm NZ tomorrow. Word is that the 8 Squarks up for sale are still in good nick and with money thrown at them could fly again. However they are a 40 year old airframe with 20 year old Avionics and to be realistic have only 6-8 years of true life left. That said even back in 2001 when they were put into storage they gave early block F-16's and F-18's around the region alot of headaches and in the right hands were lethal. That is why a number of countries such as the Brazilians and the Singaporeans continued with them for such a long time in the second tier role. Nevertheless it is now 2011 and tricked up Kiwi Kahu's and Singa Super Squawks are redundant and a way to burn up $15000 per flight hour due to thristy old J-52's.

However the 17 MB-339CB Macchi's are still open for inquiries. Around nine of them were in line to be put back into RNZAF service as advanced trainers - however their version of the Mk680 Viper was a dog and now unsupportable. Any military buyer would have to re-engine them which is difficult as nothing out there turbine wise slots in without significant internal surgery and cost. They also would need an avionics upgrade as they are still analog era and lack anything useful in the modern training context such as IFF and simex software - let alone be suitable for a light strike role. An Italian AF Batch II type upgrade was looked at by the NZDF - but cost wise it did not stack up and thus it was found to be cheaper to look into buying a COTS advanced trainer such as the PC-9M like Ireland or the T-6B or Super Tucano. Operating cost per hour arguments are also a big factor

Though the RNZAF is no longer air combat capable (which does impact the rest of the NZDF in its general capability in a holistic sense), it has received some good news of late. The first 3 of its AW-109 Mako's have arrived and another 2 will arrive later in the year with a second tranche of 3 projected by 2015. Also the first of the eight NH-90's will arrive later in the year. These are to replace very elderly Hueys I might add.