Why are the Kiwis buying T6 Texan IIs?
Thread Starter
Why are the Kiwis buying T6 Texan IIs?
I note that the sale of a dozen or so T6 Texan IIs to the RNZAF is being reported for delivery by 2016.
Why are they buying a tandem HUD/Glass Cockpit equipped single engine turbo-prop fighter lead-in trainer when they have no Fighter Wing anymore? Have they got a plan to reinstate a combat aircraft after the sad loss of the A4 capability over 10 years ago? Or are they buying "boys' toys" to try and lure in youngsters who will go on to fly C130, P3, 757 and a raft of helicopter types?
Anyone care to speculate?
LJ
Why are they buying a tandem HUD/Glass Cockpit equipped single engine turbo-prop fighter lead-in trainer when they have no Fighter Wing anymore? Have they got a plan to reinstate a combat aircraft after the sad loss of the A4 capability over 10 years ago? Or are they buying "boys' toys" to try and lure in youngsters who will go on to fly C130, P3, 757 and a raft of helicopter types?
Anyone care to speculate?
LJ
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculation and Wikipedia, just what a rumour site neees!
AT-6B Texan II
Armed version of the T-6B for primary weapons training or light attack roles. It has the same digital cockpit, but upgraded to include datalink and integrated electro-optical sensors along with several weapons configurations.[13][24] Engine power is increased to 1,600 shp (1193 kW) with the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6-68D engine, and the structure is reinforced.
Armed version of the T-6B for primary weapons training or light attack roles. It has the same digital cockpit, but upgraded to include datalink and integrated electro-optical sensors along with several weapons configurations.[13][24] Engine power is increased to 1,600 shp (1193 kW) with the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6-68D engine, and the structure is reinforced.
Thread Starter
That would make sense if they had bought the AT-6B straight off. Eg. Take the weapons off and you have a trainer, put the weapons on and you have a light-attack aircraft...
...but buying the non-weapon version seems pretty strange to me unless you plan to buy a combat aircraft. Otherwise, buy some light single-engine training aircraft and then go straight to the King Air to learn to fly heavies that make up the Kiwi fixed-wing fleet.
LJ
...but buying the non-weapon version seems pretty strange to me unless you plan to buy a combat aircraft. Otherwise, buy some light single-engine training aircraft and then go straight to the King Air to learn to fly heavies that make up the Kiwi fixed-wing fleet.
LJ
After the latest fishing trawler incursion into the EEZ a month or so ago, maybe they want to be able to send a message in future if they need to? 
I'm joking...
I'm joking...
I think you'll find that the Texan has a secondary role in NZ with Army providing FAC type training which is essential in today's asymmetric warfare world...
*also the RAAF would welcome cheap NZ trained pilots!!!
*also the RAAF would welcome cheap NZ trained pilots!!!
It makes you weep to think what the RAF could have looked like if the budget was
spent on US kit from the Phantom era onwards.
spent on US kit from the Phantom era onwards.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lovely - a thread about somewhere other than the UK (New Zealand, for those of you who didn't notice), and it gets dragged right to sad obsessed whingers moaning about the RAF.
It seems a strange choice. I'd have thought paying the RAAF to put people through their course would have been a lot more economic. Might attract a few more candidates if the tops ones get the choice to fly Hornets!!
There are other options for FAC training - use Civil jets such as L-39 or send the FAC"s to Willytown and work with the RAAF
Then they could have had a little more money for aircraft NZ is more in need of: C-130 replacement, P-3 replacement, Seasprite replacement.
As an aside I am surprised neither the RAAF or the RNZAF are in the business of water bombers I would have thought they would be must have's in that part of the world.
There are other options for FAC training - use Civil jets such as L-39 or send the FAC"s to Willytown and work with the RAAF
Then they could have had a little more money for aircraft NZ is more in need of: C-130 replacement, P-3 replacement, Seasprite replacement.
As an aside I am surprised neither the RAAF or the RNZAF are in the business of water bombers I would have thought they would be must have's in that part of the world.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the T6 makes imminent sense for many air forces. Firstly sticking with the good old UK /US thing, are there really any credible threats out there which require such expensive hardware? Is there really a Cold War II over the horizon?
It seems to me that a huge amount of offensive air calability over the past few decades could have been provided by cheap-and-cheerful stuff like the T6. Maybe it is time to dumb down.
Hats off to the RNZAF.
It seems to me that a huge amount of offensive air calability over the past few decades could have been provided by cheap-and-cheerful stuff like the T6. Maybe it is time to dumb down.
Hats off to the RNZAF.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just look at Aus for an Air Force that is majority US purchased
I note that the sale of a dozen or so T6 Texan IIs to the RNZAF is being reported for delivery by 2016.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Overlooking the beach, NZ
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been party to a big discussion over this on an NZ air forum, it comes down to:
1) cheaper than almost anything else, after all there are big economies of scale when you use the USAFs basic trainer. It is an integrated package of sims and a/c
2) being able to really push the studes before they hit ME on the King Airs. So it becomes as much of an extended grading as training
1) cheaper than almost anything else, after all there are big economies of scale when you use the USAFs basic trainer. It is an integrated package of sims and a/c
2) being able to really push the studes before they hit ME on the King Airs. So it becomes as much of an extended grading as training
being able to really push the studes before they hit ME on the King Airs.
LJ,
This is not exactly new "news", and has already been done once here on pprune:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-get-t-6c.html
nearly a month ago....
This is not exactly new "news", and has already been done once here on pprune:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-get-t-6c.html
nearly a month ago....
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 77
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The concept of relatively low-tech relatively affordable has been tried before- concept of "give every private pilot one, and turn them loose on the enemy".
concept was floated in Canada in the 80's as I recall, and National Film Board made a short movie about same. it is worth watching if you are in Olympic withdrawal. Check Diemert Defender on You tube
Same person who contributed an airworthy Hurricane to the BofB movie in '69.
Sorry to drag down the discussion (again) but I've been waiting a while to offer this. Haven't the guts to put it on the F35 debacle thread.
BTW you need a dry sense of humour to appreciate the film.
concept was floated in Canada in the 80's as I recall, and National Film Board made a short movie about same. it is worth watching if you are in Olympic withdrawal. Check Diemert Defender on You tube
Same person who contributed an airworthy Hurricane to the BofB movie in '69. Sorry to drag down the discussion (again) but I've been waiting a while to offer this. Haven't the guts to put it on the F35 debacle thread.
BTW you need a dry sense of humour to appreciate the film.
