|
Post by beagle on Oct 5, 2011 11:40:40 GMT 12
I cannot see the B350 being used as one of the facts of replacing the B200 was lack of visibility from the cockpit. and I would think that the only real difference between them both is the stretch with extra cabin windows. Well major difference.
|
|
|
Post by Chris F on Oct 5, 2011 12:23:18 GMT 12
The current Kingairs from what I read are to be replaced with 3 Kingair 350i under lease for VIP and multi engined training as per current fleet.(this is Dr Mapps preferred) The single engine is for advanced training such as fast low level and air combat manoeuvres that is a void in our current training setup. The step up from the CT/4 to the new A109 even with simulators is regarded as too bigger step. So I guess from little bits I read here and there that is why they require both types. Hawker Beechcraft I am picking would be the first cab off the rank with being able to offer both types off the shelf and ongoing support.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 5, 2011 16:59:18 GMT 12
Personally I think there are far too many rumours and theories floating around on what will be selected and it simply confuses the issue, as very few people here actually have a clue as to what is really going happen. Wait and see what they select, and then we can all moan about it then.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Oct 5, 2011 17:09:56 GMT 12
Yep, you have to be right there Dave. I have no idea what they are thinking. I do know the top guys in the RNZAF are very bright types and good thinkers. I have full confidence in them. All military capital expenditure is done by a series of committees, that is where things start getting difficult. The Air Force will be influenced by the other two arms of the Defence Forces and then it goes to a civvy committee for the final stamp. If it is anything like the Golden Eagle deal then we may all be surprised. Hang on to hats gents....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2011 17:12:44 GMT 12
haha I'm sure the politicians aren't stupid enough to choose something that isn't an improvement on what we currently have, so no matter what it should, in theory, be a good replacement. Is the Pilatus PC-9 a possibility? The aussies operate them so there is someone to go to for advice and that sort of thing on them. Although in saying that we are currently operating an aircraft unique to our air force so it probably wouldn't matter to our politicians. I think its a fantastic looking aircraft, plus i saw a video recently where a RAAF pilot said that they were a dream to fly. Although they do not possess a strike capability, which is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Oct 5, 2011 17:36:14 GMT 12
The PC9 is also easy to crash. Just don't fiddle with the fuel cut off switch at low level.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Oct 5, 2011 17:40:50 GMT 12
I agree, the PC-9 is a fine machine. Wait until the costs of operating them here are weighed up against sending a few guys to Pearce. We have been flying theirs for almost 20 years now and they have almost forgiven us after Thack and Frank Sharp trashed one.
|
|
|
Post by luke6745 on Oct 5, 2011 17:56:46 GMT 12
haha I'm sure the politicians aren't stupid enough to choose something that isn't an improvement on what we currently have, so no matter what it should, in theory, be a good replacement. I remember things along those lines being said on here before the White Paper....
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Oct 5, 2011 20:00:21 GMT 12
I agree, the PC-9 is a fine machine. Wait until the costs of operating them here are weighed up against sending a few guys to Pearce. We have been flying theirs for almost 20 years now and they have almost forgiven us after Thack and Frank Sharp trashed one. I was there when the next exchange pilot was there and nope, not under any conditions were we to fly together.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Oct 5, 2011 20:23:36 GMT 12
Hahaha, I can imagine Beagle. Did you get a few rides all the same?
Well with the passing of time the memories will have dulled and the aircraft are not all new now either. The young fellow thinks the politicians can't be that stupid... it is true. They are not corrupt and really do intend to do their best. The problem that in trying to save a few dollars the proposals get subjected to compromises and in the process lose much of the viability.
Was it the Strikemaster that was chosen because we could do a butter deal with the Poms ?
|
|
|
Post by nige on Oct 5, 2011 22:18:48 GMT 12
Well said Dave and Barronbezza, there's just too many variables involved and then the other two services to contend with & the joint force requirements etc. (Let alone the accountants)!
As long as it is an improvement on the current situation, with better still some additional lost capabilities reintroduced (which casts a wide net as more variables nonetheless) etc!
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Oct 5, 2011 22:22:05 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2011 14:13:00 GMT 12
Baronbeeza, Yeah i kind of was angling at that too about the politician trying to do trades and therefore comprimising.
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Oct 14, 2011 20:35:56 GMT 12
we arent training commercial airline pilots. Get some dam JETS! 20 Hawk 200's would solve 2 problems with one aircraft and the aaa (Anti Air force Ass*****) wouldnt even have to know they are also attack capable... well not until after we got them at least.
|
|
timo
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 1
|
Post by timo on Nov 16, 2011 22:57:39 GMT 12
Hi everyone, Im new.... I heard that the Minister of Defence, chatting on the radio today about new turboprop trainers for the RNZAF, I personally think that it apparent and probably more than likely that as the RNZAF really does not have the current serving manpower or expertise (Thanks to some individuals in the previous Government), that we will see a rebirth of (with new expertise), in the near future will be the basis of, a rebuilt strike wing in the RNZAF. I think it’s pretty obvious.
Given China is definitely on its way to have a ship capable offensive air capability, others have correctly pointed out we cannot expect Australia or the United States to cover our lack of defensive strike capability.
I see that the US president is in Australia to discuss US basing forces in the NT, under the terms of the ANZUS agreement, something we also divorced ourselves from. NZ will of course have people involved at some level, but its election time and it’s not exactly going to be public knowledge.
Personally I think New Zealand really has to look at taking her responsibilities seriously and really we have to look ahead, as the possibility of China "protecting" her interests in this part of the world, i.e. Chinese fishing encroachments and at some point her intent to break the Antarctic agreements and start sniffing around for minerals and oil.
People will say what are two or three squadrons of fighters going to do against a Chinese Naval presence; all I can say is remember what the Argentinians did to the Royal Navy. (With an some aircraft A4B's that were deemed obsolete in British military thinking at the time) With the right heart and a strong belief, those Pilots have to be commended despite your politics.
The problem will be building an expertise base up and the choice of a suitable aircraft that has range and capability.
We had the best trained fighter Pilots in the world and probably the most capable, the results of numerous exchanges with the USN and USAF at their premiere training institutions was proof enough. Hopefully we as a country will have the honour of having people like them again.
|
|
awol
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 21
|
Post by awol on Nov 17, 2011 1:33:40 GMT 12
Unfortunately there's no hope of seeing fast jets in the RNZAF ever again. That argument's been fought and lost. The question now is, what platforms do we use to train RNZAF pilots.
The requirement is for pilots who can deploy and serve in a wide variety of situations, nationalities, and tasks, both peacetime and in combat. So the pilots (indeed all aircrew) need good judgment, awareness, knowledge, skills, and flexibility. The requirement is to train pilots to that standard as safely and efficiently as possible. We want multi-engine transport pilots, maritime patrol pilots, and helicopter pilots. And in a small airforce like the RNZAF, those pilots should be capable of transferring between those roles. When the pilots have gained sufficient experience, they must be then capable of teaching new pilots.
I think we should discount the concept of piggy-backing on foreign training systems, there is a sovereign responsibility to retain this sort of basic military training in-country. Also untenable is farming out pilot training to the the civil sector (except maybe the very early, generic pilot skills taught at flying-club level).
Aircraft types. It's most economical to begin training using a capable, rugged, cheap light aircraft. We've got one of the best in the world already (believe it or not!) in the CT4. No need to change there then. But the CT4 is extremely limited at its top end - it's a poor instrument flying platform, it can't get above NZ's mountainous terrain, it can't easily fly airways routes. So another type is required to extend the student pilot's ability.
The King Air has already proven that a twin-engine aircraft is too expensive and too constrained to serve as an advanced trainer.
Pure jets are likewise expensive to run and maintain, politically unpalatable, and overkill for the RNZAF's training needs.
So we have narrowed the field to a single-engined turboprop that can climb above 13,000', cruise at 200kts or more, is rugged enough to deal with relatively short, relatively rough strips, is proven, reliable, cheap, and available in the next 12-24 months. There's really only a handful of aircraft that fit the bill, and they're all tandem seat retractables that look a lot like the PC-9.
How many? Half a dozen for PTS, 4 for CFS, and two attrition/spares gives a nice round 10 airframes. Ballpark figures would be $5-10m per airframe, plus spares and training aids, plus introduction to service costs, bringing the total bill to NZ$150 million. Chump change when you find out that unemployment benefits last year cost the taxpayer NZ$950 million.
So: request for tender, test flight program, select the winner, order, enjoy. Easy!
|
|
|
Post by davel on Nov 17, 2011 3:52:40 GMT 12
Unfortunately there's no hope of seeing fast jets in the RNZAF ever again. That argument's been fought and lost. The question now is, what platforms do we use to train RNZAF pilots. Never say never. A start would be to get NZ crews over on exchange with the RAAF to start rebuilding that skill base. Next step would be a joint NZ/AU air combat force with a Squadron of fast jets based in NZ, operated by joint NZ/AU personnel. Eventually once the skill base has developed again we could return to operating independent. Sure it would take time but it is still possible. I'm sure there's a few ex RNZAF fast jet pilots and ground crew working with other Air Forces around the world that would jump at the opportunity to come. But we digress.. I think what ever platform they go with it needs to be something capable of carrying ordinance to allow training Army in forward air control. But knowing how defence purchases usually go in NZ no doubt it won't be..
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2011 9:52:49 GMT 12
" I think what ever platform they go with it needs to be something capable of carrying ordinance to allow training Army in forward air control." I absolutely agree, the super tucano has been mentioned before on this and I think it would be a very wise to consider this airframe. It is a new design, with an introduction in 2003 and is a turboprop aircraft designed for light attack, counter insurgency and pilot training, incorporating modern avionics and weapons systems. This would give you the strike capability and training capability that has been talked about. In the proposed "Amphibious Strike Force" it says to have the ability to deploy unassisted, this would mean that there needs to be in some way shape or form an air strike capability. They could be refering to the Orion giving this capability, but I highly doubt it as it is not intended for this role.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2011 10:00:16 GMT 12
Guns: 2 × 12.7 mm FN Herstal M3P machine guns in wings and cannon pods Hardpoints: 5 (two under each wing and one under fuselage centreline) with a capacity of 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) Rockets: rocket pods Missiles: 2x MAA-1 Piranha Those are apparently the weapon capabilitys of the Super Tucano, but knowing the RNZAF's ingenuity they will probably incorporate some weapon delivery systems into it for the AGM-65 and paveways (do we still have those???). Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68C turboprop, 1,600 hp (1,193 kW) Maximum speed: 557 km/h (301 knots, 346 mph) Range: 1,568 km (849 naut mi, 974 mi) Service ceiling: 10,668 m (35,000 ft) Rate of climb: 14.9 m/s (2,936 ft/min Those are the performance statistics, seems pretty capable to me. Being a turboprop would mean it would be fairly quite, wouldn't know it was coming until it was too late, unlike loud jet engines heres a promo video
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2011 11:04:20 GMT 12
On another video an American test pilot stated that there is 133 different weapons certified for the Super Tucano.
|
|