A-4 Skyhawk recommended by Israeli advisors?
-
As everyone here probably knows Israeli advisors disguised as Mexicans helped Singapore build her armed forces since 1965.
As advisors of nascent armed forces it would have been only natural for the Israelis to recommend weapon systems for the SAF.
The SAF's first tank was the French-made AMX-13, which was used by the Israeli army in the Six Day War in 1967 and the Sinai Campaign in 1956, and the Israelis vetoed British offers of planes and helicopters except Hawker Hunter fighters.
(See "Foundations Of The Air Force" at http://www.singapore-window.org/sw05/040818id.htm)
Singaporean leaders originally planned in 1966 to build an air force comprised of 12 Canberra bombers and 40 Hunter fighters according to Tim Huxley's book "Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore." But instead of British-made Canberra bombers Singapore decided to buy secondhand A-4 Skyhawks from the US in 1972.
I suspect the decision to acquire A-4 Skyhawks, which were also used by the Israelis since late 1967, could have been influenced by the Israeli advisors' recommendation. Anyone has anything to shed some light on the subject?
Cheers,
Sunho -
For more info, read this :
http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=85
and this:
http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=533 -
Thanks for the link.
In the first one the Israeli air force advisor was quoted to have had veto power over weapons acquisitions.Foundations of the air force
Until when did they have the veto power by the way?
The small Israeli team in Singapore was augmented by professional military advisers for the various corps. The chief armored corps officer, Major General Avraham Adan, arrived to give advice on procuring armored vehicles. In 1968, Adam Tzivoni, a retired colonel who had been head of the planning and weapons branch in the air force, was appointed adviser to the Singapore Armed Forces in regard to the creation of an air force.
"As compensation for the hasty departure of the British army, the British government gave Singapore a grant of 50 million pounds to acquire British-made aerial systems: planes, helicopters and surface-to-air missiles," Tzivoni relates. "The British didn't like me at all. My first task was to approve the deals. It turned out that the English tried to sell Singapore junk. Apart from a deal for Hunters, I vetoed all the deals."
Under Tzivoni's supervision, a flight school was established in Singapore, as well as a technical school, a squadron of Alouette 3 helicopters was purchased and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns were acquired. -
The A-4 were purchased in 1972, so most probably with strong recommendation from the Israeli advisor.Originally posted by datafuser:Thanks for the link.
In the first one the Israeli air force advisor was quoted to have had veto power over weapons acquisitions.
Until when did they have the veto power by the way?
Secondly, if you read the Taiwanese connection, SADC then were relatively new and ran by inexperienced officers, relied heavily on foreign expertise, in fact the sqn commanders for the 2 new A-4 sqn were actually seconded Taiwanese officers and when they left, one of the local pilot who took over the sqn commander role was only 25 years old!!!
After the A-4, RSAF do most of the planning , but with the help from ex-Taiwanese seconded officer which retired from Taiwan AF and joined RSAF in an admistrator role and did involve in the purchase of F-5, E-2Cs and F-16. -
Isn't the Canberra very obsolete by 1973? The concept of the Canberra is that of a bomber, purely. The A4 Skyhawk on the other hand is more of a strike aircraft. Much much more useful for us.
-
The RAF operated its Canberra B(I)8 interdictors from bases in Germany until 1972. So the type was obsolete but not terribly so by 1973.Originally posted by chino65:Isn't the Canberra very obsolete by 1973? The concept of the Canberra is that of a bomber, purely. The A4 Skyhawk on the other hand is more of a strike aircraft. Much much more useful for us.
The Argentine air force had ten Canberra B62 bombers in the 1982 Falklands War and lost two, one to Sea Harrier from HMS Invincible and the other to Sea Dart area air defence missile fired by HMS Exeter.
Cheers,
Sunho -
Foundations of the air force
The small Israeli team in Singapore was augmented by professional military advisers for the various corps. The chief armored corps officer, Major General Avraham Adan, arrived to give advice on procuring armored vehicles. In 1968, Adam Tzivoni, a retired colonel who had been head of the planning and weapons branch in the air force, was appointed adviser to the Singapore Armed Forces in regard to the creation of an air force.
"As compensation for the hasty departure of the British army, the British government gave Singapore a grant of 50 million pounds to acquire British-made aerial systems: planes, helicopters and surface-to-air missiles," Tzivoni relates. "The British didn't like me at all. My first task was to approve the deals. It turned out that the English tried to sell Singapore junk. Apart from a deal for Hunters, I vetoed all the deals."
Under Tzivoni's supervision, a flight school was established in Singapore, as well as a technical school, a squadron of Alouette 3 helicopters was purchased and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns were acquired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank God for the Israeli advisors who vetoed the bloody angmos trying to pull a fast one (as usual) on us, the Asians. The Brits, our former colonial masters, must be thinking they could "get back" the 50M grand by getting us to take over all the junk and obsolete military hardware.
They have already played us out by losing the War with the Japs and next, pulling the British Army out of SE Asia, thereby screwing us up with loss of jobs and no armed forces at all. -
But did anyone know what KIND of junk did the british tried to sell to us?
-
the New Zealanders gave us free of charge their Bren guns....400 pieces I think...in 1966
Thanks New Zealand.......we have not forgotten your kind support in our time of need..........
Bren Gun -
This pic shows a WW2 .303 Bren.Originally posted by Dr Who:the New Zealanders gave us free of charge their Bren guns....400 pieces I think...in 1966
Thanks New Zealand.......we have not forgotten your kind support in our time of need..........
Bren Gun
If the Kiwi gave us any in 1966 they must be the ones converted to 7.62 NATO - or .308 Imperial system. Right about then the Brits (as well as the Kiwis?) gave up their converted Brens for FN MAGs, I think....
Anyway, the converted Bren was a dinosaur being too heavy for a SAW (over 10kg unloaded) and too small capacity mag for a platoon MG.
From a South African website:
"It is true to say that the finally converted and accepted Arms showed an acceptable level of accuracy, but never reached the inherent level of accuracy the .303 BREN was coveted for.
The 7.62mm BREN saw service with the South African Army for only a short period, many of the 'Commando' or 'Territorial' Units training with them, as did many of the National Service Units.
In both the South African and Rhodesian Service Units, the converted BREN was not favoured as an active service weapon, due to its inherently slow rate of fire, small magazine capacity and unduly high weight."
-
well if we had a fleet of canberras, we could've probably zhnged them to carry more than normal, fly farther, and far out-live their projected service lives and had us a "mini" carpet bomb capabilityOriginally posted by chino65:Isn't the Canberra very obsolete by 1973? The concept of the Canberra is that of a bomber, purely. The A4 Skyhawk on the other hand is more of a strike aircraft. Much much more useful for us.
But alas, the A-4 is a far more versatile airplane, far better for "semi"-precise hammer blows, where the canberra was neither here nor there -
The scooters were pretty precise for its generation of aircraft. Remember, ours were carrying TV/IR-guided missiles such as the Maverick. Can hit a moving targets well enough for On-Call CAS runs.
Only thing they lacked was PGM capabilities. Otherwise, they were pretty damn good.
I remember they were the ones that intercepted the communication-less bogey sometime ago. (Public domain, out on Straits Times IIRC) -
It's puzzling to demob all the A-4 as they are still the best ground strike aircrafts we have - not too fast but faster than chopper. And as I recall, they were still in good condition without much reports of crashes etc. i could be wrong, of course.
-
Our Skyhawks are PGB capable...
Mk82versions -
They are bloody good planes, once it reach about 30 years - the airframe is already weaken. Also due to the old design, there is just no room to put in new technology stuff . Also it is limited in range & endurance in the air.Originally posted by chino65:It's puzzling to demob all the A-4 as they are still the best ground strike aircrafts we have - not too fast but faster than chopper. And as I recall, they were still in good condition without much reports of crashes etc. i could be wrong, of course. -
Probably the Brits would have been glad to dispose of what they had in the island at the time of their withdrawal. They had Hawker Hunters, English Electric Canberras, and BAC Lightnings, Mach 2 capable interceptors with very short endurance.Originally posted by ray243:But did anyone know what KIND of junk did the british tried to sell to us?
Cheers,
Sunho -
Ah, The English Electric Lightning. The first aircraft to Supercruise.
-
They will fly for another 4-6 years for AJT until the new planes are operational. As a finale, they scored the hot shot competition before decommisioned in 2005. Structurally, they are very sound and could last forever... but is expensive to maintain the logistics