Royal New Zealand Air Force

[MrConservative]

Actually, "gardening leave" would be far more disparaging than "put out to pasture". Gardening leave implies that you are accused of doing something wrong and you are suspended (on full pay) awaiting the results of an inquiry. You have to stay at home Monday to Friday waiting for a telephone call from you employer.

You have just channeled Bernard Woolley.

Anyway enough of this Yes Minister Civil Servant stuff and back to the RNZAF.

 

[Zero Alpha]

I don't know if people are being churlish, or just making things up. Ashton told DefSec that he would be retiring now well over two years ago (before the review of the Acquisition Division started). He wasn't put on gardening leave (sent home), or put out to pasture (retired early). If people on this thread were better informed they'd know that he's been credited with significantly lifting the performance of the division since he started his role in September 2008 (noting how many projects were in trouble prior to him arriving).

Keyboard Warriors throwing comments around about politicians is one thing, but taking pot shots at people who have track record of getting NZDF and MoD out of the crap is another. Grow up.

I suggest you lighten up and tone down the trolling and do it pretty quickly. Because calling people here keyboard warriors, suggesting that people are ill informed, making things up and being churlish, and from your tone which I have strong reason to believe includes me as a moderator is more inappropriate than a couple of light hearted comments that had no malice intended and were common vernacular phrases for retirement as was pointed out to you by others. If you continue to escalate this you will have a holiday from this website. You are not a moderator. In the future if you have issues with a comment that someone has made, message them or a moderator about it but do not litigate it on a public thread. Focus on positively contributing to the discussion and not on nitpicking on side issues. This matter is closed.

 

[Volkodav]

I don't know if people are being churlish, or just making things up. Ashton told DefSec that he would be retiring now well over two years ago (before the review of the Acquisition Division started). He wasn't put on gardening leave (sent home), or put out to pasture (retired early). If people on this thread were better informed they'd know that he's been credited with significantly lifting the performance of the division since he started his role in September 2008 (noting how many projects were in trouble prior to him arriving).

Keyboard Warriors throwing comments around about politicians is one thing, but taking pot shots at people who have track record of getting NZDF and MoD out of the crap is another. Grow up.

You seem a little put out by what was a pretty harmless comment, i.e. I joke about having been put out to pasture myself, if I'm in a crappy mood I say "thrown on the scrap heap" or similar. In fact thinking on it, you have claimed a level of inside knowledge in the past, is he a professional acquaintance, or perhaps a colleague, or maybe your name is Des?

 

[ngatimozart]

Looking back at some history, in the mid 1960s when the Vampire and Canberra replacement was being proceeded with, the RNZAF looked for suitable replacements. After assessing the Skyhawk, F5 Freedom Fighter, the F4 Phantom and three other aircraft, the RNZAF selected the F4 Phantom as the replacement aircraft because of it meeting the requirements of having the necessary range for crossing the Tasman comfortably, was able to undertake air2air and air2ground and was twin engined. The CAS at the time took this to the service chiefs and the CDS, who approved and it was then taken to Cabinet. They didn't approve and deferred the replacement until just before the FMS approval closed later in the decade. Then they got the Skyhawks which was all that they could afford because the NZ$ had been devalued in between and the approved budget hadn't been increased. The original plan was to replace both the Canberras of 75 Sqn and the Vampires of 14 Sqn with the F4 which would have given us two sqns of F4s. The RNZAF also wanted to acquire Bae Hawks as jet trainers and LIFT, however that was kiboshed because of expense. In order to reduce costs Treasury argued that only those pilots who were to fly jet fighters should do jet training, but the RNZAF successfully argued that because it was a small air force all its pilots were trained on jets so as to not limit the RNZAF if it needed to use them later on. It didn't have the luxury of separate pilot training schemes and that this was cost effective in the long term.

So how much would have history changed if we had F4s instead of A4s? Well they would have been in service by 1969 if the decision to acquire had been made in 1966. We could have kept them upgraded and probably maintained easier because they were being operated by more air forces. The Luftwaffe retired theirs in 2008. We would have been able to operate them on the first Gulf War, East Timor, and possibly in Afghanistan as long as we had upgraded them when required; such as the Kahu upgrade. We probably would still have an ACF with a new type because the replacement would have been done sooner.

Interestingly enough, when replacing the Sunderland flying boats with the Orions, the then govt did look at not replacing the Sunderlands to save money and because they really didn't see a need for maritime patrol. Another illustration of short sightedness and narrow mindedness from pollies and some of their advisors. Fortunately they did acquire the P3.

 

[t68]

So how much would have history changed if we had F4s instead of A4s? Well they would have been in service by 1969 if the decision to acquire had been made in 1966. We could have kept them upgraded and probably maintained easier because they were being operated by more air forces. The Luftwaffe retired theirs in 2008. We would have been able to operate them on the first Gulf War, East Timor, and possibly in Afghanistan as long as we had upgraded them when required; such as the Kahu upgrade. We probably would still have an ACF with a new type because the replacement would have been done sooner.

Me personally I don't think much would changed overall with service life and upgrade to what happened with the A4. To me you should judge history if aunty never gain the power she did and who was the alternative and their position on defence, It most probably should also look at the position that Keith Holyoake took to defence as well as he was the incumbent at the time when most critical decisions were made to the make up of NZDF

But the political talk most probably be should be taken to the off topic section if the powers to be allow it.

 

[KiwiRob]

So how much would have history changed if we had F4s instead of A4s? Well they would have been in service by 1969 if the decision to acquire had been made in 1966. We could have kept them upgraded and probably maintained easier because they were being operated by more air forces. The Luftwaffe retired theirs in 2008. We would have been able to operate them on the first Gulf War, East Timor, and possibly in Afghanistan as long as we had upgraded them when required; such as the Kahu upgrade. We probably would still have an ACF with a new type because the replacement would have been done sooner.

You're clutching at straws Ngati, whatever combat aircraft that we had at the time was a going to go.

 

[t68]

You're clutching at straws Ngati, whatever combat aircraft that we had at the time was a going to go.

yep once a politician has a certain psychological outlook getting them to change is near impossible

 

[ngatimozart]

You're clutching at straws Ngati, whatever combat aircraft that we had at the time was a going to go.

Maybe, maybe not. The Skyhawks were originally slated for replacement in the 1980s so if we had gone down the path of the Phantom then they may have been replaced by something like F16s mid to late 80s. At that stage the anti-defence cabal in the Labour party didn't have the influence, power and control it had 10 years later. If they had been bought and in service, it would have been difficult to then use the acquisition cost argument to then disband the ACF. They couldn't use their "baby killer" claim which they did when the Skyhawks arrived.

The other issue was back in the 1960s with PM 'Kiwi' Keith Holyoake and his finance minister, Cpl RD Muldoon. Muldoon was against replacing the Vampires and Canberras. They were down to six usable Canberras. Don't get me wrong, the Canberra was a really good aircraft and we could have put it to good use in Vietnam, but Kiwi Keith was having none of that. Sending in 161 Battery RNZA, the infantry companies and the Forces medical team was cheaper. Yes I am being cynical.

However NZ govt unwillingness to adequately fund the RNZAF and then follow through is not a recent phenomena but goes back to just after WW2 when it bulldozed over 400 modern US fighters and then bought British aircraft. We acquired 80 DH Mosquitoes, all fighter bombers of which only around 20 were ever assembled and flown. The rest were never taken out of their packing crates and were destroyed after the mosquitoes were taken out of service. They were all brand new airframes and engines. We acquired F51D Mustangs for the RNZAF in the early 1950s. They went to the Territorial Air Force, but that was disbanded in the mid - late 50s to save money. We could have saved a lot of money if we'd used the F4G Corsairs that we had under Lend-Lease and bought 30 Mosquitoes. 14 Sqn burned their Corsairs in Japan before they came back from being part of the occupation force. That was on orders from Cabinet. They had very short memories.

One other comment, the 2 Sqn people who went to HMAS Albatross in the 1990s found a different public attitude where the Australian public respected the people who wore service uniform, unlike here in NZ. Interestingly enough, Australia acquired an aircraft carrier after the war but didn't have many naval air crew relative to the Kiwi mob in the FAA. NZ had a plethora of ex RN FAA types who had just been demobbed. There was quite a large number of Kiwis in the FAA during the war.

 

[kiwi in exile]

So how much would have history changed if we had F4s instead of A4s? Well they would have been in service by 1969 if the decision to acquire had been made in 1966. We could have kept them upgraded and probably maintained easier because they were being operated by more air forces. The Luftwaffe retired theirs in 2008. We would have been able to operate them on the first Gulf War, East Timor, and possibly in Afghanistan as long as we had upgraded them when required; such as the Kahu upgrade. We probably would still have an ACF with a new type because the replacement would have been done sooner.

It would have been interesting, but as with the others, I doubt that we would have sent them anywhere. An upgraded 3rd gen platform is still a 3rd gen platform in a 4th gen world. Keep looking the the future, not the past to solve perceived gaps in capability. Save the F4/A4s for the warbirds shows.

 

[ngatimozart]

It would have been interesting, but as with the others, I doubt that we would have sent them anywhere. An upgraded 3rd gen platform is still a 3rd gen platform in a 4th gen world. Keep looking the the future, not the past to solve perceived gaps in capability. Save the F4/A4s for the warbirds shows.

Well actually whilst the platforms are moot, the past does show a history over 70 years of government attitudes towards defence in general. In fact it goes back to the 1920s after WW1 and unless lessons are learned, history can have a habit of repeating itself. In 1938 - 39 there was a mild panic in govt circles as the crisis in Europe deepened and then graduated to a medium panic when war was declared against Nazi Germany. After the Japanese entry into the war in December 1941 the panic graduated to major panic status because we basically had very little in NZ for home defence. The only reason that the 2nd Division stayed in the Middle East was because Churchill did a deal with Roosevelt for the USN & USMC to come to NZ and provide defence against the Japanese. If that agreement hadn't happened we would have pulled our troops and their equipment home at the same time the Australians did. When the war ended, the NZG didn't have any idea of what it's defence policy should be at first, however the overriding concern was cost and how that should be kept as low as possible. One could argue that Treasury and Cabinet aversion to defence costs are the main driver of NZ defence policy and given the history since 1919 - 20 it would be easy to agree with that proposition.

One problem is that overly wide moat that surrounds us and there is still a perception amongst the public and probably pollies (Treasury too?) that the main defence threat to NZ is direct invasion, which is really the least of our worries. Hence the Army has been favoured over time, which is well and good because boots on the ground are the only force that can physically hold ground. However as an island maritime nation, the air force and navy should be of equal or more importance because it is they who can deal with threats to our SLOC in the maritime domain. So when we look at the history we do see a pattern emerging and one that has all appearances of continuing.

Where to in the future? It is has been accepted offshore that NZ has given up on defence and has become unreliable and a bludger defence wise. The oft repeated term of minimal credible defence no longer applies because for all intents and purposes NZ defence capabilities no longer meet that definition. The RNZAF now is a niche air force no longer classified as a small air force, because it only has two legs of the air force triad: air combat /strike, maritime / surveillance and transport.

Some reading material:
Margaret McClure, Fighting Spirit: 75 Years of the RNZAF, 2012, Random House, Auckland.
Matthew Wright, Kiwi Air Power - The History of the RNZAF, 1998, Reed Books, Auckland.

 

[SpazSinbad]

'ngatimozart' said: "... Australia acquired an aircraft carrier after the war but didn't have any naval air crew. NZ had a plethora of ex RN FAA types who had just been demobbed. There was quite a large number of Kiwis in the FAA during the war." Jimmy Bowles is another KIWI gone RAN FAA via the wartime RN route. Jimmy was CO of 805 Sqdn flying Sea Furies onboard HMAS Sydney during the Korean War. He died in 1994.

Another was CMDR Guy Beange - I had the great pleasure to act as his safety pilot as a Midshipman whilst he flew a Vampire on instruments to maintain his flying qualifications back in 1969.

"...For his distinguished and devoted service flying Sea Fury aircraft aboard HMAS Sydney in Korean waters, Beange was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross in 1952, one of only three RAN pilots to receive the award in that war. Born in New Zealand, he served in the NZ army during World War II. He later joined the Royal New Zealand Naval Volunteer Reserve and trained as a carrier pilot in England and the United States.

In May 1945, the then Lieut Beange was posted to 1831 Naval Air Squadron embarked in the aircraft carrier HMS Glory in the British Pacific Fleet, flying Corsair IV aircraft. He arrived too late to see much active service but was present when the Japanese surrender at Rabaul was signed on the ship's flight deck, on 6 September 1945, as the ship's Corsairs circled overhead to provide air cover.

In February 1948 he transferred to the RAN, as an Acting Lieutenant (Pilot). He was posted to HMAS Warramunga for sea-going experience, and gained his watch keeper's certificate. In April 1949 he trained in England for a year with Sea Fury aircraft. He was posted to 808 Squadron in HMAS Sydney when the ship travelled to England to embark a further two squadrons in July.

In October 1951, Sydney began her first of seven patrols in the Korean War and on 11 October her 38 aircraft set a light fleet carrier record when they flew 89 sorties in a single day. The following day, 12 of the Sea Furies located more than a 1000 North Korean troops digging in and killed or wounded 200. The aircraft, armed with rockets and cannon, flew a variety of missions - strikes, reconnaissance, ground support for troops, naval gun spotting, combat air patrols, anti-submarine patrols and aerial photography.

On 14 October, while anchored at Sasebo, Japan, Sydney put to sea to ride out Typhoon Ruth. One aircraft was lost overboard and Beange's Sea Fury was so badly damaged that it had to be ditched. By 12 November Sydney's aircraft had flown 1000 sorties in eighteen and a half flying days. As winter set in, flying operations were restricted by snow and high winds. Sydney completed her final patrol on 25 January 1952 and returned to Australia in February.

[Missing for some reason is his career as an RAN FAA Sea Venom pilot & CO of the first iteration of 805 Squadron with those aircraft.]

Beange later became a commander and was posted to a number of shore-based positions before retiring in 1979. He died in 2004...."

http://www.faaaa.asn.au/news/beange_medals_0110.htm [no longer works]

 

[ngatimozart]

'ngatimozart' said: "... Australia acquired an aircraft carrier after the war but didn't have any naval air crew. NZ had a plethora of ex RN FAA types who had just been demobbed. There was quite a large number of Kiwis in the FAA during the war."

Onesuch was CMDR Guy Beange - I had the great pleasure to act as his safety pilot as a Midshipman whilst he flew a Vampire on instruments to maintain his flying qualifications back in 1969.

http://www.faaaa.asn.au/news/beange_medals_0110.htm [no longer works]

My apologies. I'll change it to relative. A lot were were RNZNVR who wanted to fly but transferred to the navy when the RNZAF system was overloaded or wasn't quick enough for them

 

[RegR]

It would have been interesting, but as with the others, I doubt that we would have sent them anywhere. An upgraded 3rd gen platform is still a 3rd gen platform in a 4th gen world. Keep looking the the future, not the past to solve perceived gaps in capability. Save the F4/A4s for the warbirds shows.

That was more the issue, governments willingness to actually use them in a combat situation, or more to the point lack of. The skyhawks could have participated in Timor 99 as a detterent, maritime strike, show of force etc but alas no, and that was in our back yard instead we kept them for laps around NZ and holidays in Singapore. Obviously they then look good on the chopping block. 'Our F16s' could have been taking out strategic targets in Iraq right now and thus earning their keep, justifying their funding, training and existence and adding to the collective but again no, forsight and planning answered that question.

If we had of replaced them as per original timeline then it would have been less of an easy task to axe as the F16s would have already been in use, relatively new, funded etc versus during replacement, still the most likely capability to axe regardless just that bit harder if fully entrenched already.

In saying that though the last F16 lease option was a virtual cream deal and we still baulked in order to save a dollar. I hate to think what's next, frigates? full MPA? artillery? How low (end) can we go or are we back to under bare minimum enough already? Ah well histories done and the future costs so lets see what that equals.

 

[Volkodav]

Ngati, do you have access to the costings of the F-4 vs the A-4? I suspect that an analysis of them may indicate that a timely Phantom buy may not have been much, if any, more expensive than the last minute Skyhawk buy. This is often the case with delayed procurements, the preferred option meets requirements and is affordable, while delaying it increases the outlay on maintaining an aging capability, reducing the money available for a replacement capability and leaving it until there is no other option often means you have to take what you can get whatever it's value for money, or whether it meets requirements or not.

 

[t68]

Nagati

Thanks for the interesting read did not know about the F4 were the preferred option, I know RAAF we're impressed with so much they made a pitch to keep them along with F111

Are there any doc's on the reasoning NZ did not deploy the Canberra's for Vietnam?

I believe Canberra's were retired too early for NZ, did they ever have any in the photo recon role?

 

[Volkodav]

Another story I heard was the Phantoms were deferred as there was insufficient money for them and a squadron of Starlifters, which due to NZs involvement in Vietnam, were seen as a greater priority.

Phantom was offered to Australia as a Sabre replacement, a Sea Venom replacement (in conjunction with a modernised Essex class carrier, Trackers and Tracers) and a Canberra replacement, before finally serving as an interim type pending delivery on the F-111. Interestingly Australia was apparently offered an Atar powered version of the Phantom as a Canberra replacement to provide commonality with the Mirage fleet.

 

[t68]

Phantom was offered to Australia as a Sabre replacement, a Sea Venom replacement (in conjunction with a modernised Essex class carrier, Trackers and Tracers) and a Canberra replacement, before finally serving as an interim type pending delivery on the F-111. Interestingly Australia was apparently offered an Atar powered version of the Phantom as a Canberra replacement to provide commonality with the Mirage fleet.

I remember Abraham Gubler mentioned them way back in the RAN, from memory it was 16 F4 plus the assorted trackers and tracer's

But I guess it's all water under the bridge now for NZ, it's quite the pity

Another story I heard was the Phantoms were deferred as there was insufficient money for them and a squadron of Starlifters, which due to NZs involvement in Vietnam, were seen as a greater priority.

Wasn't starlifter one of the options for the RAAF but was discounted on the grounds that if one crashed we would lose close to half a battlion in one go?

 

[Volkodav]

I remember Abraham Gubler mentioned them way back in the RAN, from memory it was 16 F4 plus the assorted trackers and tracer's

But I guess it's all water under the bridge now for NZ, it's quite the pity





Wasn't starlifter one of the options for the RAAF but was discounted on the grounds that if one crashed we would lose close to half a battlion in one go?

That was the Galaxy, the Starlifter had been assessed as ideal but the government prevaricated for so long that it was no longer available. The much larger Galaxy was then assessed, which is when claims that one air crash could wipe out a battalion arose and the smaller C-130E was bought instead.

 

[old faithful]

Just a short note on the C141 Starlifters, I flew to Hawaii on one in 1986, ex pacific bond, shoulder to shoulder, knee to knee for 16 hours , with one stop at Guam. 120 pax, 2 pallets, no room for anything else. Company lift at best. Similar internal diamentions as a C130, but longer.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Another story I heard ....

...Phantom was offered to Australia as a Sabre replacement, a Sea Venom replacement (in conjunction with a modernised Essex class carrier, Trackers and Tracers) ....

Never heard that story myself (Phantom offered) but I guess that makes sense if a 'modernised Essex class carrier' offered; which was not possible due to carrier crew number requirements being too onerous, amongst other issues; and I don't believe the Essex would be 'modernised' (except by Australia - another burden).