|
Post by beagle on Nov 6, 2010 20:23:15 GMT 12
5.48 Naval helicopters will continue to provide extended reach, surveillance, and airdelivered weapon capabilities (air-to-surface missile and anti-submarine torpedo) for the frigates. A review will determine whether it is more cost-effective to upgrade or replace the existing Seasprite helicopters when they are due for an upgrade in the middle of this decade. What would an upgrade for these be. Avionics , I am not sure how much "glass technology" is in the cockpit now, but why spend a decent amount of money then to upgrade when for probably less or about the same amount, get these ex Aussie ones, also while the dollar is high, and presto, you have the glass cockpit that should last for the rest of it's lifetime. ok there is probably a lot more to it than that, such as the logistical side of things, supply, training etc but with the NH-90 being totally glass, shouldn't we keep our pilots etc up with moderm technology with these as well as our other fleet.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 6, 2010 20:36:11 GMT 12
Can't understand the push for the ex Aussie SH-2G, after they never got a full Australian Military type certificate. Mainiyl because the airworthiness authority didn't consider them airworthy.
AFAIK the NZDF airworthiness system is pretty much the same as the ADF one (I think NZ virtually copied it) so unless Kaman have fixed the airworthiness short comings identified by the ADF (never mind the performance of the mission system software) then I can't see the point in buying these, no matter how cheap.
The SH-2G in any form is an average helicopter particularly limited in poor seas/weather..
Note: Friends who worked on the project said they had pretty much fixed the problems. But the ADF still cancelled it
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 6, 2010 20:54:36 GMT 12
The I think the ADF wanted to walk away from the contract a long time before the Govt finally did so - as usual, politics got in the way of commonsense.
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 6, 2010 22:01:47 GMT 12
From this article in a reputable aviation magazine it seems that Kaman has sorted out the fiddling around with the Sea Sprite that the ADF did. www.aviationtoday.com/rw/issue/cover/Putting-the-"Super%22-in-the-Kaman-Super-Seasprite_35381.htmlSo air worthiness should seem not to be an issue. If they are now good enough for US air worthiness standards they most certainly will be good enough for ours for the next decade or so. So they might not be perfect, may only be average, the SH-60 may be better and the NHF definately better, but the message in the Defence Review was loud and clear that there is little extra money in the pot for Defence. That Defence is lucky to be getting some new shiny things and unlike other nations (UK) or even other ministries in NZ (Budget 2010) has missed a Ruth Richardson style razor job like in the 1990's. Money is a big issue when it comes down to having some sort of capability versus zero capability. This is where this might all lead if idealism gets in the way of pragmaticism. If they the SH-2G(I)'s can work reasonably well for the sort of jobs we require for them at very attractive prices instead of an ultra expensive NHF platform which may cost a billion dollars more, the Govt is going to do it. Imagine in a few years, when it comes to replacing the current (NZ) versions. A Labour-Greens government is in power (Oh God helps us) and faced with the usual choice of buying an adequate replacement or upgrading the (NZ) versions with an LEP ala the C-130's. As night follows day it wont be a billion+ on new NHF's it will be a vain attempt to squeeze a couple more years out of aging aircraft by then. (And it will take 6 years and probably go horribly wrong. Frigates and 6Sqd subsequently scrapped.) Oh and yes it seems that the revised I model has a glass cockpit. No doubt OTS.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 7, 2010 9:46:29 GMT 12
I'll believe it when I see it with a full type certificate. Nothing in that articles says it has a full type certificate rather than just an experimental You get what you pay for
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Nov 7, 2010 11:53:53 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Nov 7, 2010 15:39:10 GMT 12
Do you think the Poms will have the same issues now that they have signed up to borrow French aircraft carriers to put their jets on, after scrapping their own carrier? They havent scrapped their carriers - their future ones anyway. Two are still under construction, although one may only be used as a helicopter carrier. It seems they have scrapped everything else including their current carriers to pay for the new ones - soon all the UK defence will consist of are will be one or two carriers The French only have one carrier - they would like another but can't afford it so thats why there is going to be some co-operation beween the French and Royal Navies. So its just as likely that we will see French jets using a UK carrier as UK jets using French carriers, especially now that Poms are getting convetional take off/landing F-35Cs and not VSTOL "B"s. All this talk about C-17s - by the time the RNZAF make a decision on replacing the Hercs the C-17s will be long out of production unless Boeing get a big order real soon. We could get a second hand one but my bet no Air Force will be willing to give theirs up.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 7, 2010 15:45:57 GMT 12
Those new carriers are years away from service though Paul.
There was something on the German news on DW-TV last night saying that the A400 is in big trouble with issues around avionics problems with the engines and they are looking at cutting back the production line from 180 to be built to 170. I diodn't catch it all and am not sure if that is total production or if it is just an order for Germany?
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Nov 7, 2010 15:50:56 GMT 12
That would be total production (excluding exort orders). The Germans are getting around 50 A400s.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 7, 2010 15:56:55 GMT 12
So if they are already quoting a total production line, we must have missed the boat?
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Nov 7, 2010 16:42:22 GMT 12
Nah still open for exports...porduction aircraft are yet to fly and production will run into the 2020s I would expect
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 7, 2010 22:11:32 GMT 12
All this talk about C-17s - by the time the RNZAF make a decision on replacing the Hercs the C-17s will be long out of production unless Boeing get a big order real soon I think India ordered 10 yesterday. That'll make them the 2nd biggest user.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 7, 2010 22:47:00 GMT 12
Back in the olden days when places like India and Pakistan were poor, NZ used to donate them free aeroplanes. Now that they are rich and we are poor, maybe they could buy us some.
|
|
|
Post by adzze on Nov 7, 2010 23:03:38 GMT 12
Back in the olden days when places like India and Pakistan were poor, NZ used to donate them free aeroplanes. Now that they are rich and we are poor, maybe they could buy us some. The sad thing is that India is still poor - relatively speaking. Their GDP is about the same as Australia's but with 50 times the population. Yet they spend 2.6% of GDP it on defence (more than China, percentage-wise).
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 8, 2010 19:46:49 GMT 12
They do have definite enemies though
|
|
|
Post by nige on Nov 9, 2010 21:44:09 GMT 12
From today's DomPost letter's to the editor, written by someone well known to some here I believe. Letter: Which version of the Defence White Paper did you read? Last updated 12:00 09/11/2010 OPINION: Reading the editorial on the army in the Defence White Paper 2010 (Nov 3), I wondered if the Government had published two versions of the document. The version I read was as far removed from the army-focused, introspective and head-in-the-sand defence documents of the Helen Clark era as the Key-led Government could go without the Greens and their ilk having fits. The version I read included a global map centred on Wellington, which clearly showed that, apart from Australia and South Pacific islands, the only other landmass was Antarctica - visual proof that we're a maritime nation. Indeed, the paper includes a line stating that 99 per cent of trade, by volume, is transported by sea. There are some intentions in the paper that might or might not come to fruition, notably the expansion of Ohakea to include army units. There are some notable omissions - nothing about the mothballed jets, for example - but, essentially, this is the first document of its type I've seen in more than 25 years that appears to be written by people who take defence seriously and appreciate the maritime dimension. NICK LEE-FRAMPTON New Zealand correspondent, Australian Defence Magazine and US Defense News www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/4322763/Letter-Which-version-of-the-Defence-White-Paper-did-you-read
|
|
pablo
Warrant Officer
Posts: 30
|
Post by pablo on Nov 27, 2010 17:59:34 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Naki on Dec 14, 2010 11:56:37 GMT 12
Theres a small article in the latest Aviation News commenting that the RNZAF is considering either Pilatus PC-7/9, Raytheon T-6s or Embraer Tucanos to partly replace the King Airs and supplement the CT-4s.
It also mentioned that resurrecting the Aermacchis just wasn't financially possible as they had to be repowered (as mentioned on this board before) as RR arent supoorting the Vipers they currently have.
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Dec 14, 2010 22:01:43 GMT 12
It also mentioned that resurrecting the Aermacchis just wasn't financially possible as they had to be repowered (as mentioned on this board before) as RR arent supoorting the Vipers they currently have. So that can't do much for their resale prospects
|
|
|
Post by timmo on Dec 15, 2010 8:13:59 GMT 12
It also mentioned that resurrecting the Aermacchis just wasn't financially possible as they had to be repowered (as mentioned on this board before) as RR arent supoorting the Vipers they currently have. I wonder if RR has some Trent 900's going cheap?
|
|