Special flypast 12 Northrop F-5E Tiger II Swiss Air Force

M

MUC-Spotter

Active member
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77FdKkkks4o"]Special flypast 12 Northrop F-5E Tiger II Swiss Air Force Axalp 2018 AirShow - YouTube[/ame]
 
Wow, I didn't know anyone still flew those things.


At one stage in the 1980s there was talk of us buying the F-20 Tigershark to replace the old A4 Skyhawks, fortunately, it got canned before we did anything stupid.
 
MontyB said:
At one stage in the 1980s there was talk of us buying the F-20 Tigershark to replace the old A4 Skyhawks, fortunately, it got canned before we did anything stupid.
Click to expand...
As a fighter the F-20 would have been a big leap forward vs the F-5, haven't seen anything involving ground attack though.
 
The problem is that the A-4 was a phenomenal aircraft but it made no sense for an island nation to operate a ground attack aircraft as it's primary combat vehicle.

I have always thought the F-15 would have been a good choice but for some reason, we looked at F-16s.
 
MontyB said:
The problem is that the A-4 was a phenomenal aircraft but it made no sense for an island nation to operate a ground attack aircraft as it's primary combat vehicle.

I have always thought the F-15 would have been a good choice but for some reason, we looked at F-16s.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a ground attack plane shouldn't be the primary aircraft. Not knowing what was available to them, or funds available, the F-4 would have been a much better choice. Currently the F-15/16/18 would work.
 
George said:
Yeah, a ground attack plane shouldn't be the primary aircraft. Not knowing what was available to them, or funds available, the F-4 would have been a much better choice. Currently the F-15/16/18 would work.
Click to expand...

We were offered a block of F-16s earmarked for Pakistan, in the end we canned whole fighter capabilty so that we could turn our military into the salvation army.
 
MontyB said:
We were offered a block of F-16s earmarked for Pakistan, in the end we canned whole fighter capabilty so that we could turn our military into the salvation army.
Click to expand...

That actually surprised me and I thought only the British Government were a bunch of numbnuts.
 
BritinAfrica said:
That actually surprised me and I thought only the British Government were a bunch of numbnuts.
Click to expand...

We had a government at the time which confused defense work with aid work and redefined the militarys priority as helping our neighbours through natual disasters.
Since then we have pumped money into the army and now they all just about have a vehicle each, we purchased a non-ocean capable logistics support ship for the Navy (which turned out to be a surplus banana transport) and a bunch of helicopters for the air force that can't be deployed overseas because we have nothing big enough to transport them.
So when it comes to defense we can out numbnuts the best of them.
 
MontyB said:
We had a government at the time which confused defense work with aid work and redefined the militarys priority as helping our neighbours through natual disasters.
Since then we have pumped money into the army and now they all just about have a vehicle each, we purchased a non-ocean capable logistics support ship for the Navy (which turned out to be a surplus banana transport) and a bunch of helicopters for the air force that can't be deployed overseas because we have nothing big enough to transport them.
So when it comes to defense we can out numbnuts the best of them.
Click to expand...

I reckon our numbnut government beats yours. We had Winston Churhill's son in law Duncan Sandys who wrote a white paper stating that the days of piloted aircraft were over. The result was many promising aircraft on the drawing board were immediately cancelled, thankfully the English Electric Lightning was too far into development to cancel. Duncan Sandys was an Artillery officer during WW2, he knew as much about aircraft as my German Shepherd.
 
I don't know the army have enough vehicles to move the entire force from one end of the country to the other 7 times without using the same vehicle twice, we purchased 4 frigates to operate in Antarctic waters and first one they sent down damn near snapped in two, now they want to replace the Hercules D series with J series ones that can't transport either NH-90 helicopter nor the NZLAV our primary frontline vehicles.

Can we call it a draw?
 
MontyB said:
I don't know the army have enough vehicles to move the entire force from one end of the country to the other 7 times without using the same vehicle twice, we purchased 4 frigates to operate in Antarctic waters and first one they sent down damn near snapped in two, now they want to replace the Hercules D series with J series ones that can't transport either NH-90 helicopter nor the NZLAV our primary frontline vehicles.

Can we call it a draw?
Click to expand...

lol I'm sure I can think of something else.:-D
 
MontyB said:
, now they want to replace the Hercules D series with J series ones that can't transport either NH-90 helicopter nor the NZLAV our primary frontline vehicles.

Can we call it a draw?
Click to expand...
Would need C-17s, out of production, unfortunately.
 
George said:
Would need C-17s, out of production, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Yes but we are looking at the C-17 despite it being out of production, personally I think the Airbus A-400M is the aircraft we should be looking at as it is pretty much a prop driven version of the C-17.
 
George said:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...lities-of-airbus-a400m-aircraft-idUSKBN1H51CX
Click to expand...

Oddly enough there is nothing in what the Germans are saying that we don't already know but a lot of it is to be expected from a relatively new aircraft, we have had an RAF one here on and off for months and it has shown itself to be a reliable and suitable aircraft albiet expensive.

What it boils down to is that we need an aircraft that can transport our NZLAVs, NH-90s as well as carry out aid operations from small Pacific Island airfields and while the Hercules is an amazing aircraft it can't perform the first two requirements.

What that leaves us with are various Chinese and Russian options which I would hope we aren't suicidal enough to buy, the out of production C-17 which would put the parts in the hands of a country that can no longer be considered reliable or Europe which is expensive but reliable.

I have no doubt we will end up with C-130-Js not because of it's suitablility or support by our military but for political expedience, if the airforce got it's wish we would have the A400M as the main transport and the KC-390 Embaerer as support.
 
George said:
Think I saw somewhere that the USAF might be drying to get the C-17 back in production.
Click to expand...

That was the rumour but Boeing are looking at selling the property as well, it is also estimated that it will cost upwards of $8 billion to restart production to it would probably be more cost effective to develop one of Boeing's existing civilian aircraft into the role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top