Thanks Elche:ok:

The photos show the rapid deterioration of the latex covering on the RNZAF Skyhawks. It has deteriorated to the point where it is holding moisture in.
When is old Helen going to realise that they are not going to be sold as operational airframes, especially in this condition.
It is about time they were sold off to museums and as warbirds, before its too late.

3 News > Political > Story > Skyhawks sale gets a step closer

'Skyhawks sale gets a step closer

The Air Force's white elephants, the A4 Skyhawks, are one step closer to finally being sold, seven years after they were grounded.

Defence Minister Phil Goff has confirmed to 3 News the US government has given him an assurance to fast track a possible sale, which could come in the next two months.

Since being grounded in 2001 the A4 Skyhawks have proved to be more a nightmare for the Air Force than the pride they once were, costing $300,000 a month to maintain.

The Government has tried to sell them for nine years, only to be blocked every time by the US State Department. But Defence Minister Phil Goff says they are now wanting to help.

“I have now had an assurance from the Department of Defence and the Department of State that once the tender has been issued, to one of the two bidders for our planes, they will fast track the process,” says Goff.

Goff has confirmed to 3 News the sale price is US$110 million dollars for the 17 Skyhawk jets and a fleet of training Aermacchis.

A contract has yet to be awarded by the US, but Goff is confident that should be in the next two months, and a cheque written finally by the end of the year.

“I'll only breathe a sigh of relief when I receive the cheque but so far the assurance given to me by the American government is very welcome,” says Goff.

The assurance came from a high level US official who visited Wellington last week, and it comes less than a month after the visit of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The Skyhawks have been sitting outside at the Woodbourne Airbase for almost a year, covered by a hundred thousand dollar latex coating that ACT MP Heather Roy says is failing.

“Water is seeping in between the layers of the latex. It's pooling the so called maintenance is somebody going around after rain with a pin or sharp object piercing the latex covering so that the water drains out and that’s it,” Roy says.

Safe Air, the company that maintains the Skyhawks, would not comment today. The Air Force though says the weather damage was expected but that the important parts of the aircraft are well kept. The Government says their current condition should not hinder any possible future sale.'

Iraqi Air Force?

TJ

That would be ironic... since Kuwait was flying Skyhawks when Iraq invaded in 1991.

Those Skyhawks are now flying for Brazil... which is another possible buyer (Argentine ditto).

I have had the pleasure of spending a month on holiday in NZ on both Islands with my family. It was, and probably will be, the best holiday we've ever had.
It is a fantastic country with really nice people. Were it not for family considerations, I would be down there like a flash.

I do not wish to cause offence. But..

Guys. A couple of FJ sqns will not guarantee anything, and in a country of 4 million, you cannot go large on defence. Australia is between you and the rest of the world. Maritime and SAR are a more realistic contribution to your part of the world.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a Brit, and realize that militarily, we are incapable of fighting independently on any great scale, though like you, at platoon level, we can dish it out.

Back here in Europe, when Russia says,'Look, we're a really big country stuffed full of oil, wheat and people, and if we decide to invade Georgia, we will'. We have no answer.

Apart from mumbling about human rights and wondering if the US will help.

What a couple of FJ squadrons says is that we are a part of this world and will contribute force when we feel it is required.

Kiwi squadrons made their impact felt in several theaters in WWII. They tended to punch higher than their weight and their re-emergence on the international scene would be a positive thing.

Yes, but what good are a couple of sqns of fast jets when NZ impact on good relations in the Far East and humanitarian aid are better served by AT and rotary assets.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see RNZAF with a FJ capability again. But money is tight. Disaster relief and help where it is really needed are better goodwill ambassadors than punching somebody's lights out.

I will probably stand corrected here, but were the NZ A4s ever involved in a 'hot war', and what were the losses?

I've never met an unpopular Kiwi and you guys are always welcome in Blighty. But the cost of running FJ with such a small population doesn't justify the costs. I wish it were not thus, but if you had to crunch the governmental numbers, health care, roads, education, power supply, care of the old, the sick, ex-politicians and all of the rest leave a couple of FJ sqns way down the list of 'must haves'.

I agree with you, but see the economic arguments against.

No Kiwis in Darfur?
 

flatfootsam said
"NZ's in iraq, afganistan and other UN sanctioned zones for political expediency regarding trade, rather than any higher motives. why is no one in Darfor?"

Apart from these ones?
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/operations/de...an/default.htm

By the look of those pics, $300, 000 a month is a rip off. i would do it for $290,000. Bargain!!! How about they send a T-A4 and an A-4 back to nowra to put in the museum.

http://www.adf-serials.com/gallery/a.../Image0024.jpg

Please don't take this as RW schadenfreude, but there has been much sense talked about the relative value of a small FJ force for a nation such as NZ. A couple of sqns might soothe egos and provide an interesting diversion at airshows but in the real world such a force would be hideously expensive for a nation the size of NZ.

It is not just the purchase and operating costs. The logic of some posters is that NZ FJs could be deployed in support of Coalition ops. The cost of keeping a small fleet of FJs up to Coalition Theatre Entry Standard would be horrific; even the UK struggles to keep a small proportion of its' relatively large FJ inventory at TES standard. Then the logistics cost of supporting such a det would be a large strain, possibly dictating more AT/AAR etc etc. Finally the US would say "Oh great, 6 old F-16s (for example), park them over there behind the rows of F15s, F18s, F22s and (eventually) Typhoons." To contribute SH and troops would receive a much warmer response as NZ has, pound for pound, some of the best troops on the planet.

So, stick to your (door) guns. Do what is right for NZ. Buy MPA to secure your own backyard and, if you want to support GWoT, provide more troops and Helos. The bonus of this is that the troops/helos can also be used at home or abroad in non-combat roles (SAR/Disaster relief) to provide more than just a "woosh" at airshows.

Ostrich syndrome
 

Quote

Flatfootsams

post #135

"NZ's in iraq, afganistan/And who is seriously going to attack nz?"

Even without your countries contributions in those theatres you already are a target for being what you are, a non Muslim Western Democracy.

Talking about the NZ A4 Skyhawks reminds me of a night stop in Christchurch some years ago. Had 2 days to kill and from our central hotel decided to walk to an Air Museum I was told about on a disused airfield where amongst other aircraft was an A4 Skyhawk.

After walking for what seemed like ages I eventually got there along a very busy road full of traffic but it was well worth a visit.There was an interesting veteran to talk to and I managed to get a bus back!!

Well worth a visit if you are in Christchurch.

wessex19,
Great pic! I would love to see ex oz A-4s in the museum in Nowra.

gone?
 

From Australian aviation express
MILITARY

The sale of the RNZAF’s A-4s looks to have been cleared. (Paul Sadler)


* NZ SKYHAWKS FINALLY CLEARED FOR SALE: Radio NZ News has reported that the RNZAF’s 17 retired A-4K Skyhawk fighter bombers - which were mothballed in 2001 - have finally been cleared by the US government for sale to a private US company.
The NZ$155m (A$128m) sale of the aircraft, which also includes 17 Aermacchi MB-339 advanced trainers, had been held up by the US State Department as well as the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms which reportedly had to approve the transfer of the ejection seat initiation explosives.
The company buying the aircraft, believed to be an Arizona based company which provides air training services to the US military and allies, will send engineering staff to NZ to assess to the aircraft before a final deal is reached.

Please excuse my ignorance as I genuinely dont know, but could someone explain the reasons behind why we need the permission of the US to agree the sale of these aircraft between NZ and another nation? Thanks

A sad thread
 

While on detachment with 50sqn to RNZAF Ohakea in February 1973, I was lucky enough to get a ride in the 74(?)sqn T-bird. Fg. Off. Rod Murdoch opted for low-level route Gold - memorably and spectacularly through the Alps of South Island and culminating in an attack on Queenstown, after which he stood it on its a$se and we climbed out. I don't remember many better days' flying. RIP A4.

Congress decides to whom it will sell its hardware and the conditions that will apply to the End User and technology transfer. The Canberra B(I)6 and 15/16 was a case in point. These were part funded by the US and capable of carrying US Nuclear bombs. When they were retired we were not allowed to sell them on.

Another example was the C130. The package we got was a self-maintain package whereas the package sold to the Iranian Air Force had a Lockheed support package included. Where a prop seal needed replacement RAF Engineers could do this in the field. For the Iranian aircraft it involved an engine change and shipment back to the US - at a cost!

The RAF Eng in Tehran who showed the Iranians how to do a seal change got a rocket from Lockheed who stood to lose a nice little earner.

A couple of years have gone by...........

I live in Ashburton now and being now retired of course I have joined the local aviation museum where the hot buzz is that donors have been found to cover the cost of acquiring a Skyhawk.;)

It's the 21st Century
 

Uncle Helen was absolutely right to get rid of the A4. Whilst it's great to wax lyrical about 'the time when' and having an orgasm (poor old Kiwi Chick!) from seeing one, the need for the A4 was long past in 1999 if not before. NZ is a very small player in the world and use the dets to be noticed; not influence, but be noticed. The days of Wigwam and Hobnobville are long past - it's an ugly place here in the 21st century but feel free to join us!:ok:

Dear John, :rolleyes:

As an ex NZ A4 driver, and after reading your negativity dating back to posts in 2007, now that you have joined the Ashburton Aviation Museum fraternity, (and congrats for securing an A4), I trust you will now put your efforts into displaying it with the austerity the aircraft deserves and with the appropriate dignity to those that served on 75 Sqn and also to those sqn pilots who gave their lives in service of their country, even if it was in peacetime!!
I look forward to visiting the museum one day as I've heard it has some great exhibits..

nzav.

A-4 - A Great Aircraft!
 

I flew the A-4M on exchange with the USN at NWC China Lake in the late 70's/early 80's.

Obsolescent it might have been then - but what a great machine and what a delight to fly. And very capable. Flew it on a RED FLAG, and certainly caught the attention of the trendy Tom Cruise F-14 brigade, and the F-15 mob!!

I loved the Hunter - but the A-4 was a step more capable, even though smaller.

So anything that can be done to save the memory of that great little machine deserves support.

My A-4 FOREVERFOREVERFOREVER t-shirt has been lost in the mists of time.

But my memory of the A-4 is certainly not lost.

Good Luck and I hope its memory can been saved.

Draken International Buys the Skyhawks!
 

Draken International acquires ex Kiwi Skyhawks | Australian Aviation Magazine

About bloody time! :ok:

BomberH,

I have heard the same about the A4. It was held in high regard by the USMC. However, it was toast to any Sea Harrier that came across it in 82 and had an ejector seat that was more likely to kill you than save you.

Not All A-4s Were The Same!!
 

The A-4M had a P408 engine which was much more powerful than the P6 or P8 which powered earlier models. Different as chalk and cheese.

Plus, the SeaJets and Argentinian A-4s were flying very different missions, and were armed in very different ways, so comparing SeaJet air-to-air success over early model A-4s in an air-to-ground fit in that conflict is not a good comparison.

In peacetime training, an AIM-9L equipped A-4M and and AIM-9L equipped AV-8A were a good match, with the winner usually the better air combat pilot of the two.

So declaring all A-4s to be toast against Sea Harriers is somewhat misleading - IMHO.

Any evidence for your contention 'navaleye'? Anyway being the first rocket zero zero seat the Escapac was often used outside the envelope. Served the RAN FAA well as shown in these dire strait instances.

Click thumbnails for the big pic:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...1979series.jpg http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...ejectFinan.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...atedStills.mp4

Navaleye has a point about the Skyhawks used by Argentina, while BomberH has a point about the USMC's A-4Ms.

The early A-4s had poor engines and ejection seats, while later ones had much better engines and ejection seats.

A-4B: 7,700 lb.s.t. J65-16; ESCAPAC 1 rocket-boosted ejector seat
A-4C: as above or 8,400 lb.s.t. J65-20; ESCAPAC 1A-1 low-level ejector seat

The Argentinian Skyhawks (both Fuerza Aerea and Comando de Aviación Naval) in the Falklands war were refurbished versions of these two, with engines and ejection seats unchanged.


A-4E*: 8,500 lb.s.t. J52-6A (later 9,300 lb.s.t. J52-8A); ESCAPAC 1 STENCEL MOD
A-4F**: 9,300 lb.s.t. J52-8A; ESCAPAC 1C-3 (later 1F-3) ejector seat
A-4M***: 11,200 lb.s.t. J52-408; ESCAPAC 1C-3 (later 1F-3) ejector seat

Argentina bought surplus A-4Ms in 1995 to replace those in the Fuerza Aerea, while the Comando de Aviación Naval no longer operates any Skyhawk model.


Singapore's A-4Ss were refurbished and modified A-4B/Cs with the J65-20.
These were modernized to A-4SUs by replacing the J65 with the 11,000 lb.s.t. F404-100D (non-afterburning).

* also Israeli A-4H
** also RAN A-4G & RNZAF A-4K
*** also Kuwaiti A-4KU & Israeli A-4N

I think the simple fact is that there was no developed ACM in the Falklands war so impossible to compare the two jets really.

Unescorted bomb trucks versus CAP, even if the GCI has limited picture and the jets a poor look down system, should realistically be a fairly one sided event.

Might we allow ourselves to wonder what would have happened if the opening strikes on Stanley and Goose Green by Sea Harriers had been pounced upon from above by 9L toting A-4s?

I think a couple of sinkings can attest to the strike power of the A-4 given that they operated at the max of their range. The A-4 worked well in its day in Vietnam too as well as Israeli war of attrition. I watched them in Beersheba recently doing training and the pilots love them.

and they were CHEAP

and didn't take 12 years to get to the prototype stage

Can those in the know enlighten me? That second photo appears to show the pilot leaning forward in the seat. Is that an optical illusion, or is that about right in that situation? I always imagined that the G forces would put the head down, but I thought the shoulder restraints would have worked a little better than that.

Just a civvy question chaps. :ok:

The pilot has pulled the secondary handle between legs. When pulling primary handle over the head the face blind acts as a restraint to head movement and protect head from wind blast. Primary handle used in other non-urgent situations. This A4G has just arrested with the 'wire breaking' during pull out leaving the aircraft to 'trickle' off the deck edge fairly fast. It is impossible to prevent the head with helmet weight from being pulled down by the rocket upwards acceleration in this situation. Apparently the pilot suffered no ill effects in this ejection. Cold cat shot pilot had some minor injuries AFAIK. Shoulder restraints have no effect on head movement.

888 A-4G Pilot Ejects - Arrestor Wire Break HMAS Melbourne


"23 May 1979 A-4G 888 is lost after the wire breaks during arrest on HMAS Melbourne. Pilot was a USN exchange pilot on VF-805 who ejects succesfully as shown in this video with many camera angles and slow motion replays...."

Spsinbad
I always thought it was a hook that broke in the RAN Skyhawk incident or I seem to recal incidents, but I am willing to be corrected.
John

If you view the slow motion part of the video on Youtube you will see the wire actually fall away from the hook because it 'broke' under the deck. Meanwhile here is part of the 888 pilot report.([Later tonight Friday an upload will start & within 24 hours a new version of the 4.4GB PDF will be online at https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd6...6&sa=822839791 [SpazSinbad's Page at Microsoft SkyDrive] with a complete report on all fings A4G plus bonus extras.) Have been attempting to upload elsewhere but cannot do so due to server overload. Maybe later the new version of the PDF can be uploaded. Dunno.

Click thumbnail: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...lot_Report.gif

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...ftextSMALL.jpg http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...irebreakSl.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...tailNATOPS.gif

Thanks Spaz. Terrific video too. :ok:

I noticed the air brakes retracting almost immediately. They must surely be automated & linked to the arrestor hook in some way.

The pilot controls the speedbrakes. As soon as the aircraft hits the deck the throttle goes to full power and speedbrakes IN. If a bolter or touch and go then speedbrakes extended during downwind subsequently. If successful arrest then pilot will retard the throttle and bring the speedbrakes in. Speedbrake thumb switch is on the throttle so easy to control.

Click Thumbnail: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...humbSwitch.gif

Right. Gotcha. :ok:

I'm learning a ****load of stuff here tonight! :};):}

'rjtjrt' this is what 'Stubbsy' [lead hookman] had to say via e-mail about 888 and the arrest wire (wire breaks and is pulled through or drops away from unbroken hook):

"STUBBSY: "I was the lead hook-man on that day, I jumped the wire when it recoiled back, my partner Hughy Fraser copped it in the shins; it was like a car crash in slow motion. Lucky to be here, the wire parted under the deck in the sheaves. If it happened on deck I reckon we were history."

Click thumbnail for an earlier e-mail account by same 'Stubbsy':

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...ionHookman.gif

BomberH,

I'm always happy to be corrected and thank you. I thought the ARG A4s had a system called Escapac (sp?) which gained a bad reputatation and survivability rate with thye USMC. The Daggers and Mirages which had MB bang seats compared to the old A4s in 82.

Sinbad you are a font of Skyhawk knowledge! :ok:

Navaleye, did you see my post above?
http://www.pprune.org/7361954-post146.html

ALL A-4s had some version of the ESCAPAC seat.

The Arg A-4s had the early ESCAPAC seat, while the A-4s in USN/USMC service past the mid-1970s (retirement of the 100 USN/USMC Reserve A-4Ls [upgraded A-4B/C]) and all A-4s manufactured after 1962 had significantly improved versions of the ESCAPAC seat.